Definitions and Doctrines in Political Law

POLITICAL LAW
It is that branch of Public Law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental
organs of the state and defines its relations with the inhabitants of its territory. (People v. Perfecto GR
L18463 October 4, 1922)

POLITICAL LAW IS A PUBLIC LAW

Hence, it is abrogated (abolished) by the change of sovereignty UNLESS it is expressly redeemed or
subsequently reenacted. People v. Perfecto 43 Phil. 887

It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of
the ceded region are totally abrogated. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the
relations sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. xxx Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or
otherwise, must hold it subject to the Constitution and laws of its own government, and not according
to those of the government ceding it. Macariola v. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later to RP, the provisions of the Code of
Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty,
the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign,
are automatically abrogated, UNLESS they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new
sovereign.

MUNICIPAL LAW
That which pertains solely to the citizens and inhabitants of a State. Deals with the CONDUCT or
STATUS of Individuals, Corporations, and other “PRIVATE” entities within a particular State.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION
Implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right,
and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA
642)

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

A ‘political question’ is one the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution exclusively in
either the people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has
been delegated to a co-equal branch of the Government. Thus, while courts can determine questions
of legality with respect to governmental action, they cannot review government policy and the wisdom
thereof, for these questions have been vested by the Constitution in the Executive and Legislative
Departments.

CONSTITUTION
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all
persons, including the highest officials, must defer. Three (3) parts of a written Constitution
1. Constitution of Sovereignty (Article XVII – Amendments and Revisions)
2. Constitution of Liberty (Article III – Bill of Rights)
3. Constitution of Government (Article VI, VII, VIII, IX)

It should be interpreted:
1. Verba Legis – ordinary meaning of the words used
2. Ratio legis et anima – intent of the framers
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat – as a whole (Francisco vs HR GR160261 11.10.03)

THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

It is classified as written, enacted and rigid.
Effectivity - The ConCom completed their task on 12 October 1986 and presented the draft
constitution to President Aquino on October 15, 1986. After a period of nationwide information
campaign, a plebiscite for its ratification was held on FEBRUARY 2, 1987. More than three-fourths of
all votes cast, 76.37% (or 17,059,495 voters) favored ratification as against 22.65% (or 5,058,714
voters) who voted against ratification. On February 11, 1987, the new constitution was proclaimed
ratified and took effect. De Leon v. Esguerra - The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on
February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have been
superseded.
POLITICAL QUESTION of Constitutionality: In Re: Puno June 29, 1992 - It was through the February
1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and more popularly known as the “people power revolution”
that the Filipino people tore themselves away from an existing regime. This revolution also saw the
unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government. It has been said that “the locus of positive
law-making power lies with the people of the state” and from there is derived “the right of the people to
abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of government without regard to the existing
constitution.”

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION on EDSA I vs. EDSA II: Estrada v. Arroyo GR 146738 - The Court also
distinguished between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II. EDSA I involves the
exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an
exercise of people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government
for redress of grievances which only affected the office of the President. EDSA I is extra constitutional
and the legitimacy of the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review,
but EDSA II is intra constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the
succession of the Vice President as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented political
question; EDSA II involves legal questions.

PEOPLE POWER IS RECOGNIZED IN THE CONSTITUTION

1. Article III Section 4 – guarantees the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances;
2. Article VI Section 32 – requires congress to pass a law allowing the people to directly propose of
reject any act or law or part of it passed by congress of a local legislative body
3. Article XIII Section 16 – provides that the right of the people and their organizations to participate in
all levels of social, political, and economic decisions making shall not be abridged and that the Senate
shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms;
4. Article XVII, Section 2 – provides that subject to the enactment of an implementing law, the people
my directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative.

CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY DOCTRINE

Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates ANY norm of the Constitution, that law or contract,
whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons
for private purposes, is null and void and without any force or effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is DEEMED written in every statute and
contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS GR 122156 02.03.97)

LEX POSTERIOR DEROGATE PRIORI

In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be
invalidated if they are in conflict with the constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No.
139465, January 18, 2000)

THE PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and
humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote
the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity,
the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

Origin – or authorship is the Will of the “Sovereign Filipino People”

Scope and Purpose – To build a just and human society and to establish a government that shall
embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony,
and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the
rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace. (Bernas)

TERRITORY
Is a fixed portion of the surface of the Earth inhabited by the people of the State. As an element of the
state, it is an area over which a state has Effective Control.

The PHILIPPINE TERRITORY

The Philippine Archipelago consists of Terrestrial domain, Fluvial domain, Aerial domain (Sovereignty
over airspace extends only until where outer space begins. 50-100 miles from earth) including its
Territorial Sea, Seabed, Subsoil, Insular Shelves, other Submarine areas All other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
The waters, around between and connecting different islands of the Archipelago, regardless of their
breadth or dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Article I 2nd Sentence.)
Integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that together they can constitute one
unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands by joining
appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and
waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the territory. Purpose: [1] Territorial Integrity, [2]
National Security, [3] Economic Reasons.

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

Discovery alone is not enough. Mere discovery gives only an inchoate right to the discoverer. For title
to finally vest, discovery must be followed by effective occupation in a reasonable time and attestation
of the same.

GROTIUS DOCTRINE OF IMMEMORIAL PRESCRIPTION

Speaks of uninterrupted possession going beyond memory.

THALWEG DOCTRINE
For boundary rivers, in the absence of an agreement between the riparian states, the boundary line is
laid on the middle of the main navigable channel.

MIDDLE OF THE BRIDGE DOCTRINE

Where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the middle or center of the bridge.

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Function:
It is a statement of the basic ideological principles and policies that underlie the Constitution. As such,
the provisions shed light on the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution and they are the guide
for all departments of the government in the implementation of the Constitution. (Bernas
Comprehensive Reviewer 2011)
Note: As a general rule, these provisions are non-self-executing. But a provision that is complete in
itself, and provides sufficient rules for the exercise of rights is self-executing.

STATE
It is a community of persons more or less numerous (PEOPLE), permanently occupying a definite
portion of TERRITORY, independent of external control (SOVEREIGNTY), and possessing an
organized GOVERNMENT to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
State v. Nation : State – is a legal concept ; Nation – is a ethnic concept.

PEOPLE
as an element of a state, simply means a community of persons sufficient in number and capable of
maintaining the continued existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law. It
is of no legal consequence if they possess diverse racial, cultural, or economic interest. (Bernas
Comprehensive Reviewer 2011). People as used in the Constitution: [1] as Inhabitants - Article II,
Section 15, 16; Article III, Section 2; Article XIII, Section 1; [2] as Electors - Article VII, Section 4; Article
XVI, Section 2; Article XVIII, Section 25); [3] as Citizens - Article II, Section 4; Article III, Section 7.

SOVEREIGNTY – supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a Sate by which the state is
governed.
Legal – is the supreme power to affect legal interests either by legislative, executive or judicial action.
Lodged in the people but normally exercised by state agencies.
Political – is the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine the
course of law.
Internal Sovereignty – refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairs. It is the supreme
power over everything within its territory.
External Sovereignty – Also known as INDEPENDECE, which is freedom from external control. It is
the power of the State to direct its relations with other States.
Characteristics – It is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and
imprescriptible. BUT, in the case of Tanada v. Angara, it was held that sovereignty of a state cannot be
absolute. It is subject to limitations imposed by membership in the family of nations and limitations
imposed by treaties. The Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the
rest of the world. (2000 Bar Question)

GOVERNMENT – is that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society

makes and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state
or which are imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or
authority of prescribing them. (US v. Dorr 2 Phil 332)
Functions: [1] Constituent – compulsory because it constitute the very bonds of society. [2] Ministrant
– undertaken to advance general interest of society
Classification: de jure – has rightful title but no power or control, either: a] because same has been
withdrawn from it; OR b] because same has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof. de facto
– actually exercises power or control but without legal title.

It was held in Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino that “the people have made
the judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon Aquino which is in effective
control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure
government. Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present
government.

PARENS PATRIAE DOCTRINE

the government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal actions for and in behalf of
particular individual. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738)

DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN STATE

Republican State is wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by
representatives chosen by the people. (Bernas Comprehensive Reviewer 2011). Democratic State - In
view of the new Constitution the Philippines is not only a representative or republican sate but also
shares some aspect of direct democracy such as “INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM” in Article VI
Section 32 and Article XVIII Section 2. (Bernas Comprehensive Reviewer 2011)

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
The rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no legislative action is required to
make them applicable to a country. The Philippines follows this doctrine, because Section 2. Article II
of the constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international
law as part of the law of the land. However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are
given equal standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.

DOCTRINE OF AUTOLIMITATION
The doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to the
exercise of its sovereignty.

DOCTRINE OF SUABILITY / STATE IMMUNITY

Under this doctrine, the State cannot be sued without its consent.
The State may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3, Art XVI) There can be no legal right as against
the authority that makes the laws on which the right depends. [Kawananakoa v. Polyblank 205 US
349]  also called the doctrine of Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. If the State is amenable to suits, all
its time would be spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent it from performing it other
functions. [Republic v. Villasor]

JUDICIAL POWER
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are
enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of
such rights. Vested in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. Since
the courts are given ‘judicial power’ and nothing more, courts may neither attempt to assume or be
compelled to perform non-judicial functions. They may not be charged with administrative functions
except when reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their duties.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
The power of the SC to declare a law, treaty, ordinance and other governmental act
unconstitutional.
Requisites: [1] Actual Case or Controversy; [2] Proper Party (Locus Standi); [3] Earliest Opportunity;
[4] Necessity of deciding constitutional questions

DOCTRINE OF PURPOSEFUL HESITATION

This is about the Symbolic function of the court. It means that the court would not decide on matters
which are considered political questions. This focus on the necessity of resolving Judicial Review.
Furthermore, in questions of constitutionality, Supreme Court will not rule right away because the
Supreme Court assumes that the Law passed the two departments already, thus, it went through
process of determining its constitutionality

INTER-GENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOCTRINE

The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the
case based on the concept of “intergenerational responsibility”. Their right to a healthy environment
carried with it an obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the
Court recognized legal standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on
non-impairment of contracts must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the
interest of public welfare.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS Clause

When does a law impair the obligation of contracts:
1) If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the time or mode of
performance
2) If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed
3) If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms.
A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the contract,
and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of
contracts.
A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts.

SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE

This principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative powers as on the two other powers. In
essence, separation of powers means the legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive,
settlement of legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the
others. But the separation is not total. The system allows for “checks and balances” the net effect of
which being that, in general, no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of
the other departments.
Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one department and thereby to avoid tyranny. The
purpose was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of
governmental powers among the three departments, to save the people from autocracy. [1] To secure
action; [2] To forestall overaction; [3] To prevent despotism; and [4] To obtain efficiency

PRINCIPLE OF BLENDING OF POWERS

Instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are assigned to or
shared by several departments.

CHECKS AND BALANCES PRINCIPLE

This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or to rectify mistakes or
excesses committed by the other departments. The first and safest criterion to determine whether a
given power has been validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has
been constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercise—since the conferment is
usually done expressly. However, even in the absence of express conferment, the exercise of the
power may be justified under the doctrine of necessary implication. The grant of express power carried
with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

ORIGIN OF THE REVENUE BILL

ART. VI Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt,
bills of local application, and private bills shall originate EXCLUSIVELY in the the HOR, but the Senate
may propose or concur with amendments.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
It is the power of the President to withhold certain types of information from the public, the
courts, and the Congress.
ART. VI Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent
of the President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall
provide, appear before and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their
departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled
appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover
matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires
and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive
session.

DOCTRINE IN MARBURY V. MADISON

The case of Marbury v. Madison established the doctrine of judicial review as a core legal principle in
American constitutional system: “So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; of both the law and
the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably
to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the
court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of
judicial duty.”

MONSANTO DOCTRINE
One who is given pardon has no demandable right to reinstatement. He may however be reappointed.

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

In Yap v. Thenamaris Ship’s Management, the Operative Fact Doctrine was discussed in that:
As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all. The
general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be
excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.
The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned general rule. In Planters
Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, we held:
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity
and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a
statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences
which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on
those who have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of
unconstitutionality would put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a
municipality in reliance upon a law creating it.
In that case, this Court further held that the Operative Fact Doctrine will not be applied as an exception
when to rule otherwise would be iniquitous and would send a wrong signal that an act may be justified
when based on an unconstitutional provision of law.

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY / ALTER EGO DOCTRINE

Acts of the Secretaries of Executive departments when performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business or unless disapproved or presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v.
Secretary of the Interior). The President can assume a Cabinet post, (because the departments are
mere extensions of his personality, according to the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, so no
objection can be validly raised based on Sec. 13, Art VII.)

QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY DOCTRINE (ALSO ALTER EGO PRINCIPLE)

“all the different executive and administrative organizations are mere adjuncts of the Executive
Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief
Executive, and, except in cases wherein the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or by the
law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious
executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the
executive departments., performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless
disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively acts of the Chief Executive.” (Free
Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and Employment)

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be
made until all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first
instance by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative
process has been completed. As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA
426.

PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE DOCTRINE / DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESORT

Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon administrative body to act upon a matter, no
resort to courts may be made before such administrative body shall have acted upon the matter

DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

No resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been completed and there is
nothing left to be done in the administrative structure.

BRANDEIS DOCTRINE OF ASSIMILATION OF FACTS

Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a
question of law as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter, the court will, in order to
decide the legal question, examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary.
DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the
court and an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise
of the administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court,
it must yield to the jurisdiction of the administrative case.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE
Regarded as an elementary principle of higher importance in the administration of justice that the
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or vacated by any court of
concurrent jurisdiction (30-A Am Jur 605).

DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay
the reasonable value of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general
power to contract (Province of Cebu vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 447).
The doctrine applies to all cases where money or property of a party is received under such
circumstances that the general law, independent of an express contract, implies an obligation to do
justice with respect to the same.
Thus, in this case, the Province of Cebu cannot set up the plea that the contract was ultra vires and
still retain benefits thereunder. Having regarded the contract as valid for purposes of reaping benefits,
the Province of Cebu is estopped to question its validity for the purpose of denying answerability.

DOCTRINE OF RATIFICATION
Although the act of a public officer may not be binding on the State because he has exercised his
powersdefectively, his acts may be ratified.

Exceptions:
[1] Where there is a want of power in the public officer to perform the original act
[2] The actwas absolutely void at the time. However if the act is merely voidable, it can be rendered
valid
[3] If the principal himself could not lawfully have done the act, or if it could not have been lawfully
done by anyone.

DOCTRINE OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITIES

In re: Gonzales – A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar as a qualification for the office held by him cannot be charged with disbarment during
his incumbency. He cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan, or are other court, with
any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office. Members of the Supreme Court
are removed only by impeachment. They are not entitled to immunity from liability. They must first be
removed, via the constitutional route of impeachment, and then only may he be held liable either
criminally or administratively (including disbarment), for any wrong.

DOCTRINE OF REJECTION OF 2ND PLACER

Geronimo v Ramos - Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who have
received the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in
allrepublican forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be
declaredcarried unless he or it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election.
COMELECcannot name the 2nd placer as the winner. Follow the hierarchy of positions instead.

DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION

Plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election (Gonzales v. COMELEC GR L28196 Nov.
1967), provided the people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to
conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-
meal amendments is unconstitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at one
plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision.
They have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitution would be. (Tolentino v. Comelec
GR L34150 Oct. 16 1971)

DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION

Grant of an express power carries with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

DOCTRINE OF SHIFTING MAJORITY

For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the
session, there being a quorum, is required.
DOCTRINE OF INAPPRORIATE PROVISION
A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto
even if it is not an appropriation or revenue “item”. (Gonzales v. Macaraig)
Reason for the Doctrine
: The intent behind the doctrine is to prevent the legislature from forcing the government to veto an
entire appropriation law thereby paralyzing government.
Inappropriate Provisions
- Repeal of laws. Repeal of laws should not be done in appropriation act but in a separate law
(PHILCONSA v. Enriquez) (use this doctrine carefully)

DOCTRINE OF AUGMENTATION
Prohibition against transfer of appropriations, however the following may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in
other items of their respective appropriations:
1. President
2. Senate President
3. Speaker of the HoR
4. Chief Justice
5. Heads of Constitutional Commissions.

THEORY OF RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY

The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a mere comparison of its
provisions with applicable provisions of the Constitution, since the statute may be constitutionally valid
as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another. A statute valid at one time may
become void at another time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical
operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication,
is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions (Central Bank Employee Assn,
Inc. vs. BSP, GR 148208, Dec. 15, 2004).

OVER-BREADTH DOCTRINE
Decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE

A criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated
conduct is forbidden by the statute, or is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests
and convictions is void for vagueness. The constitutional vice in a vague or indefinite statute is the
injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair
warning.

A law is “vague” as not to satisfy the due process need for notice when it lacks comprehensible
standards that “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to
its application” or is so indefinite that “it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.”

It is injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no
fair warning.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

The objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence (open to the eye and hand). Finds application
only when the incriminating nature of the object
is in the “plain view” of the police officer.
~ It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty
arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed
package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.
However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its
transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may
be seized. In other words, if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its
appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be
immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. (People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668)

Requisites:
1. Valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties;
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are;
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT / BORJAL DOCTRINE

Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an
action for libel or slander. It means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is
deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every
false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed
against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such
discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact
or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on
established facts, it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might
reasonably inferred from the facts. (Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1)

BALANCING OF INTEREST DOCTRINE

Privilege Not Absolute
: Claim of executive privilege is subject to balancing against other interest. In other words,
confidentiality in executive privilege is not absolutely protected by the Constitution. Neither the
doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without
more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process
under all circumstances. A claim of executive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of
a crime or wrongdoing (Neri v. Senate).

MIRANDA DOCTRINE
The Miranda Doctrine or the Miranda Warning provides that:
1. A person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the
right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
2. He or she has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during the
interrogation;
3. If he cannot afford a lawyer, like if he is an indigent, a lawyer shall be appointed by the State to
represent him;
4. His right to counsel is available at any stage of the interrogation, hence, even if he consents to
answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point of
the investigation, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. If the above are not
observed, the evidence obtained therefrom shall not be admissible in court.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES DOCTRINE

[This doctrine though is commonly used in warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure
cases]
The ECD basically provides that the normal procedures and rules of court in the admissibility of
evidence may be disregarded in exigent circumstances like when there is a coup d’etat. The rationale
is the same as with PSC, that is to protect public safety or national security. This doctrine was used in
the 1994 case of People vs Rolando De Gracia (GR Nos. 102009-10). The accused therein was
subjected to a warrantless search and seizure sometime in 1989 during the height of the coup
attempts against then President Cory Aquino. Confiscated from him were various explosives and
ammunition. De Gracia contested the warrantless search and seizure but the Supreme Court ruled
that the search warrant can be dispensed with due to the exigent circumstances attendant to the case.

FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE

Exclusionary Rule
- Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him (the accused). Therefore, any evidence obtained by virtue of an illegally obtained
confession is also inadmissible, being the fruit of a poisonous tree.

DOCTRINE OF SUPEREVENING EVENT

Prosecution for another offense if subsequent development changes the character of the first
indictment under which he may have already been charged or convicted. Conviction of accused shall
not bar another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense originally charged
when:
1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission;
2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or discovered only after filing of former complaint or
information; and
3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the consent of prosecutor or offended party.
Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, for double jeopardy to attach, the case
against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information sufficient in form and substance and the
accused pleaded to the said charge.
MELO DOCTRINE The rule of identity does not apply when the second offense was not in existence
at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case, there is no possibility for
the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus,
where the accused was charged with physical injuries and after conviction, the injured person dies, the
charged for homicide against the same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.

DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

Superior officer is liable for acts of subordinate when:
1. he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or incompetent subordinates
2. he negligently or willfully fails to require subordinate to conform to prescribed regulations
3. he negligently or carelessly oversees business of office as to furnish subordinate an opportunity for
default
4. he directed or authorized or cooperated in the wrong
5. law makes himself expressly liable

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION DOCTRINE

Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on matters of their own
specialization.

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the
exercise of purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary
in nature; hence, res judicata does not apply. [Nasipit Lumber Co. v NLRC (1989)]. The essential
requisites of res judicata are:
1. The former judgment must be final;
2. It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and
4. There must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. [Ipekdijan Merchandising v
CTA (1963)]

VARIANCE DOCTRINE
Is that a crime charged includes crime proved, convict of crime proved. Also applies when crime
proved includes crime charged, convict of crime charged.

RIPENESS FOR REVIEW DOCTRINE

1. This determines the point at which courts may review administrative action.
2. Application:
[a] when the interest of the plaintiff is subjected to or imminently threatened with substantial injury
[b] if the statute is self-executory
[c] when a party is immediately confronted with the problem of complying or violating a statute and
there is a risk of criminal penalties
[d] when plaintiff is harmed by the vagueness of the statute.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other minerals oils, all forces of
potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora, and fauna and natural resources belong to
the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated.
(Sec. 2 Art XII)

STEWARDSHIP DOCTRINE
Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the people in general,
who are its real owners.

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION
The generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the State but must first
be embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and so transformed into municipal law.
Only when so transformed will they become binding upon the State as part of its municipal law.

PACTA SUN SERVANDA

Treaties must be observed in good faith. If necessary, the State concerned must even modify its
national legislation and constitution to make them conform to the treaty to avoid international
embarrassment.
REBUS SIC STANTIBUS
A contracting state’s obligations under a treaty terminates when a vital or fundamental change or
circumstance occurs, thus allowing a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, because of the
disappearance of the foundation upon which it rests

WILSON DOCTRINE
recognition shall not be extended to any government established by revolution or internal violence until
the freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government.

ESTRADA DOCTRINE
the Mexican government declared that it would, as it saw fit, continue or terminate its diplomatic
relations with any country in which a political upheaval had taken place and in so doing it would not
pronounce judgment on the right of the foreign state to accept, maintain or replace its government.
(Cruz, International Law, 2003 ed.) (In view of recent developments, the Wilson doctrine and the
Estrada doctrine are no longer in the mainstream of public international law.)

INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE DOCTRINE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has already
renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state whose nationality he has acquired.

HOT PURSUIT DOCTRINE

Requisites:
a. Pursuit commences from internal waters,territorial sea or contiguous zone ofpursuing state
b. Continuous and unabated
c. Conducted by warship, military aircraft orgovernment ships, authorized for the purpose
d. Ceases as soon as the ship being pursued enters the territorial sea of its own, or of a third state

DOCTRINE OF FREE ENTERPRISE

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, G.R. No.
156041, February 21, 2007 and Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs.
Sec. Duque III, G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007, it was held that despite the fact that “our present
Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy”, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the
power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call
for removal of ‘protective regulations’. It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence
just exactly how such protective regulation would result in the restraint of trade.

WILSON/TOBAR DOCTRINE
Precludes recognition of government established by revolution, civil war, coup d’etat or other forms of
internal violence until freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional
government (US President Woodrow Wilson and Ecuadorian FM) [2004 Bar]

STIMSON DOCTRINE
Precludes recognition of any government established as a result of external aggression (US Sec. Of
State Henry Stimson)

ESTRADA DOCTRINE
Dealing or not dealing with the government established through a political upheaval is not a judgment
on the legitimacy of the said government (Mexican Minister Genaro Estrada) [2004 Bar]

DOCTRINE OF INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality although he has already renounced it
under the laws of another state whose nationality he has acquired

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY

(Art. 5, Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws) – a person having more than
one nationality shall be treated as if he had only one—either the nationality of the country in which he
is habitually and principally resident or the nationality of the country with which, in the circumstances,
he appears to be most closely connected (Frivaldo vs. Comelec)

UST GOLDEN NOTES 2017

Doctrine of Proper Submission
A plebiscite may be held on the same day as a regular election. (Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
28196, Nov. 9, 1967)
The people must be sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, for them to
conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-
meal amendments is unconstitutional.
All amendments must be submitted for ratification in one plebiscite only. The people have to be given
a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision. (Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-34150,
Oct. 16, 1971)

Archipelagic Doctrine (2015 Bar)

The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the archipelago, regardless of their
breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (1987 Constitution, Art. I)
Under the Archipelagic Doctrine, we connect the outermost points of our archipelago with straight
baselines and consider all the waters enclosed thereby as internal waters. The entire archipelago is
regarded as one integrated unit instead of being fragmented into so many thousand islands. (Cruz
and Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 24)

Basis of the Doctrine of State Immunity

GR: All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another, consonant with
the public international law principle of par in parem non habet imperium. A contrary disposition would
"unduly vex the peace of nations." (Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, Sept. 16, 2014)
XPN: A State may be sued if it gives consent, whether express or implied.

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy

Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law or contract,
whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons
for private purposes, is null and void and without any force and effect. Since the Constitution is the
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and
contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997)

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
Rules of International Law form part of the law of the land and no legislative action is required to make
them applicable in a country. Thus, the Philippines is bound by generally accepted principles of
international law, which are considered to be automatically partof our own laws.

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION
Generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the State but must first be
embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and so transformed into municipal law.

Doctrine of Separation of Powers (2003, 2009, 2010 Bar)

Legislation belongs to the Congress, implementation to the executive, and settlement of legal
controversies and adjudication of rights to the judiciary. Each is therefore prevented from invading the
domain of the others.
Purposes of Separation of Powers
1. Secure action;
2. Forestall over-action;
3. Prevent despotism; and
4. Obtain efficiency.

Principle of Checks and Balances

Allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or
excesses committed by the other departments.

Doctrine of Necessary Implication (2010 Bar)

Exercise of the power may be justified in the absence of an express conferment, because the grant of
express power carried with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

Doctrine of Shifting Majority

For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the
session, there being a quorum, is required.

Doctrine of Augmentation (1996, 1998 Bar)

No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the
President of
the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,
and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the
general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective
appropriations. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 25[5]; Demetria v. Alba, G.R. No. 71977, February 27,
1987 and Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)

Principle of command responsibility

It is “an omission mode of individual criminal liability,” whereby the superior is made responsible for
crimes committed by his subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators (as opposed to
crimes he ordered). (Rubrico v. GMA, G.R. No. 183871, Feb. 18, 2010)

“Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency” or “Alter Ego Principle” (2014, 2015 Bar)
The acts of the secretaries of the Executive departments performed and promulgated in the regular
course of business are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. (Villena v. Sec. of the Interior,
G.R. No. L-46570, April 21, 1939)

Open Court Doctrine

Civilians cannot be tried by military courts if the civil courts are open and functioning.

OPERATIVE FACT DOCTRINE

(2010 Bar)
Under this doctrine, the law is recognized as unconstitutional but the effects of the unconstitutional
law, prior to its declaration of nullity, may be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play. It is a
rule of equity (League of Cities v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 176951, Nov. 18, 2008).

Doctrine of Relative Constitutionality

Where the constitutionality of certain rules may depend upon the times and get affected by the
changing of the seasons. A classification that might have been perfectly all right at the time of its
inception may be considered dubious at a later time.

Political Question Doctrine

The doctrine that the power of judicial review cannot be exercised when the issue is a political
question. It constitutes another limitation on such power of the judiciary.

VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
(2010, 2014 Bar)
A law is vague when it lacks comprehensive standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its common meaning and differ as to its application. Insuch instance, the statute
is repugnant to the Constitution because:
1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice
of what conduct to avoid
2. It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions. (People v. de la Piedra,
G.R. No. 128777, Jan. 24, 2001)

Plain View Doctrine (2012 Bar)

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer, who has a right to be in
the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. It applies
when the following requisites concur:
(J-I-A)
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is
in a position from which he can view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
3. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.

Captive-Audience Doctrine
When a listener cannot, as a practical matter, escape from intrusive speech, the speech can be
restricted. It recognizes that a listener has a right not to be exposed to an unwanted message in
circumstances in which the communication cannot be avoided. A regulation based on the captive-
audience doctrine is in the guise of censorship, which undertakes selectively to shield the public from
some kinds of speech on the ground that they are more offensive than others. Such selective
restrictions have been upheld only when the speaker intrudes on the privacy of the home or the
degree of captivity makes it either impossible or impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid
exposure. Thus, a government regulation based on the captive-audience doctrine may not be justified
if the supposed “captive audience” may avoid exposure to the otherwise intrusive speech. (1-United
Transport Koalisyon v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206020, April 14, 2015)

Doctrine of Fair Comment

GR: Every discreditable public imputation is false because every man is presumed innocent, thus,
every false imputation is deemed malicious, hence, actionable.
XPN: When the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, such
is not necessarily actionable.
NOTE: For it to be actionable, it must be shown that either there is a false allegation of fact or
comment based on a false supposition.
XPN to the XPN: If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts; it is
immaterial whether the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred
from facts. (Borjal v. CA, G.R. No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999)

Clear and Present Danger Test (2014 Bar)

The government must also show the type of harm the speech sought to be restrained would bring
about— especially the gravity and the imminence of the threatened harm – otherwise the prior
restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech based on its content cannot be justified by
hypothetical fears, “but only by showing a substantive and imminent evil that has taken the life of a
reality already on ground.”

Overbreadth Doctrine (2010, 2014 Bar)

Permits a party to challenge the validity of a statute even though as applied to him it is not
unconstitutional but it might be if applied to others not before the Court whose activities are
constitutionally protected (Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza in Cruz v. Secretary of Environment
and Natural Resources, GR. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000). It is a type of facial challenge that prohibits the
government from achieving its purpose by means that “sweep unnecessarily broadly, reaching
constitutionally protected as well as unprotected activity.

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

Once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible.
NOTE: The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be
used to gain other evidence, because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence
subsequently obtained.

Variance doctrine
In spite of the difference between the crime that was charged and that which was eventually proved,
the accused may still be convicted of whatever offense that was proved even if not specifically set out
in the information provided it is necessarily included in the crime charged. (Teves v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 154182, Dec. 17, 2004)

Doctrine of Supervening Event - The accused may still be prosecuted for another offense if a
subsequent development changes the character of the first indictment under which he may have
already been charged or convicted.

Strict adherence to the Maquiling doctrine

The ruling in Maquiling is indeed novel. Use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation or
recantation of the oath of renunciation. Yet, despite the issue being novel and of first impression, the
Court in Maquiling did not act with leniency or benevolence towards Arnado. Voting 10-5, the Court
ruled that matters dealing with qualifications for public elective office must be strictly complied with.
Otherwise stated, the Court in Maquiling did not consider the novelty of the issue as to excuse Arnado
from strictly complying with the eligibility requirements to run for public office or to simply allow him to
correct the deficiency in his qualification by submitting another oath of renunciation. Thus, it is with
more reason that we should similarly require strict compliance with the qualifications to run for local
elective office. (Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015)

Doctrine of Necessary Implication

All powers necessary for the effective exercise of the express powers are deemed impliedly granted.
(Pimentel v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-53581, Dec. 19, 1980)

Doctrine of Ratification
Although the acts of a public officer may not be binding on the State because he has exercised his
powers defectively, his acts may be ratified.
The doctrine does not apply where:
1. There is a want of power in the public officer to perform the original act.
2. The act was absolutely void at the time it was done.
3. If the principal himself could not have lawfully done the act, or
4. If it could not have lawfully been done by anyone.

Command Responsibility Doctrine

A superior officer is liable for the acts of his subordinate in the following instances:
1. He negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or incompetent subordinates;
2. He negligently or willfully fails to require his subordinates to conform to prescribed regulations;
3. He negligently or carelessly oversees the business of the office as to give his subordinates the
opportunity for default;
4. He directed, cooperated, or authorized the wrongful act;
5. The law expressly makes him liable.

(E.O. No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987, Book I, Chap. 9, Sec.38-39)

Condonation Doctrine
The condonation doctrine connotes a complete extinguishment of liability of a public officer or “denying
the right to remove one from office because of misconduct during a prior term”.
Under the new ruling, the Supreme Court simply finds no legal authority to sustain the condonation
doctrine in this jurisdiction. As can be seen from this discourse, it was a doctrine adopted from one
class of US rulings way back in 1959 and thus, out of touch from – and now rendered obsolete by –
the current legal regime. In consequence, it is high time to abandon the condonation doctrine that
originated from Pascual, and affirmed in the cases following the same, such as Aguinaldo, Salalima,
Mayor Garcia, and Governor Garcia, Jr.
NOTE: The abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be prospective in application for the
reason that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until reversed, shall
form part of the legal system of the Philippines. (Carpio-Morales v. CA, G.R. No. 217126-27, Nov. 10,
2015)

Applicability of the doctrine of immunity of public officers

This doctrine is applicable only whenever a public officer is in the performance of his public functions.
On the other hand, this doctrine does not apply whenever a public officer acts outside the scope of his
public functions.
NOTE: A public officer enjoys only qualified, NOT absolute immunity.

Essence of de facto doctrine

The de facto doctrine has been formulated, not for the protection of the de facto officer principally, but
rather for the protection of the public and individuals who get involved in the official acts of persons
discharging the duties of an office without being lawful officers.

Doctrine of Res Judicata

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the
exercise of purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary
in nature; hence, res judicata does not apply. (Nasipit Lumber Company, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No.
54424, August 31, 1989)

Doctrine of Ripeness for Review (2001 Bar)

It is similar to that of exhaustion of administrative remedies except that it applies to the rule-making
power and to administrative action which is embodied neither in rules and regulations nor in
adjudication or final order.

Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction or Doctrine of Prior Resort (1996 Bar)

Under the principle of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving
question within the jurisdiction of an administrative body prior to the decision of that question by the
administrative tribunal where the:
1. Question demands administrative determination requiring special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal;
2. Question requires determination of technical and intricate issues of a fact;
3. Uniformity of ruling is essential to comply with purposes of the regulatory statute administered

NOTE: In such instances, relief must first be obtained in administrative proceeding before a remedy
will be supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. The
judicial process is accordingly suspended pending referral of the claim to the administrative agency for
its view.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies (1996, 1998, 2000, 2015 Bar)

It calls for resorting first to the appropriate administrative authorities in the resolution of a controversy
falling under their jurisdiction and must first be appealed to the administrative superiors up to the
highest level before the same may be elevated to the courts of justice for review.
Premature invocation of court intervention is fatal to one’s cause of action. Exhaustion of
administrative remedies is a prerequisite for judicial review; it is a condition precedent which must be
complied with.

DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

It provides that no resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been completed
and there is nothing left to be done in the administrative structure.

Doctrine of estoppel does not apply against a municipal corporation to validate an invalid
contract
The doctrine of estoppel cannot be applied as against a municipal corporation to validate a contract
which it has no power to make, or which it is authorized to make only under prescribed conditions,
within prescribed limitations, or in a prescribed mode or manner, although the corporation has
accepted the benefits thereof and the other party has fully performed its part of the agreement, or has
expended large sums in preparation for performance. A reason frequently assigned for this rule is that
to apply the doctrine of estoppel against a municipality in such a case would be to enable it to do
indirectly what it cannot do directly. (In Re: Pechueco Sons Company v. Provincial Board of Antique,
G.R. No. L-27038, Jan. 30, 1970)

Doctrine of Implied Municipal Liability

A municipality may become obligated, upon an implied contract, to pay the reasonable value of the
benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general power to contract. The doctrine
of implied municipal liability has been said to apply to all cases where money or other property of a
party is received under such circumstances that the general law, independent of express contract,
implies an obligation upon the municipality to do justice with respect to the same. (Province of Cebu v.
IAC, G.R. No. 72841, January 29, 1987)

Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia)

The Regalian Doctrine dictates that “all lands not appearing to be clearly of private dominion
presumably belong to the State. Unless public land is shown to have been reclassified or alienated to
a private person by the State, it remains part of the inalienable public domain. Indeed, occupation
thereof in the concept of owner, no matter how long, cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as
a title.” (Republic v. Sps. Benigno, G.R. No. 205492, March 11, 2015)

Stewardship Doctrine
Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the people in general,
who are its real owners.

Doctrine of Incorporation
It means that the rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no further legislative
action is needed to make such rules applicable in the domestic sphere.
The fact that international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply
the primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of
incorporation as applied in most countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not
superior, to national legislative enactments (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law, Fourth ed.,
1974, p. 16)

Doctrine of Transformation
It provides that the generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the state
but must first be embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and so transformed into
municipal law.
Types of Transformation Theories
1. Hard Transformation Theory – Only legislation can transform International Law into domestic law.
Courts may apply International Law only when authorized by legislation.
2. Soft Transformation Theory – Either a judicial or legislative act of a state can transform International
Law into domestic law.

Pacta Sunt Servanda (2000 Bar)

International agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty engagement is not a mere moral
obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. A state which has contracted a valid
international agreement is bound to make in its legislation such modification as may be necessary to
ensure fulfillment of the obligation undertaken.

Principle of Auto-Limitation (2006 Bar)

Any State may by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign rights. There
may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a plenary power (Reagan v. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379,
Dec. 27, 1969).
NOTE: While sovereignty has traditionally been deemed absolute and all-encompassing on the
domestic level, it is however subject to restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed to by the
Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as a member of the family of nations. By the doctrine of
incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted principles of international law, which are
considered to be automatically part of our own laws.

Doctrine of Equality of States

All states are equal in international law despite of their obvious factual inequalities as to size,
population, wealth, strength, or degree of civilization (Sarmiento, 2007).

Principle of State Continuity

From the moment of its creation, the state continues as a juristic being notwithstanding changes in its
circumstances provided only that they do not result in loss of any of its essential elements (Sapphire
Case, 11 Wall. 164 in Cruz, 2003).

Doctrine of Association (2010 Bar)

It is formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish durable links. In the basic model,
one state, the associate, delegates certain responsibilities to the other, the principal, while maintaining
its international status as a state. Free association represents a middle ground between integration
and independence.

Tobar or Wilson Doctrine (2004 Bar)

It precludes recognition to any government coming into existence by revolutionary means so long as
the freely elected representatives of the people thereof have not constitutionally reorganized the
country.

Stimson Doctrine
No recognition of a government established through external aggression (Nachura, 2009).

Estrada Doctrine (2004 Bar)

It involves a policy of never issuing any declaration giving recognition to governments and of accepting
whatever government is in effective control without raising the issue of recognition. An inquiry into
legitimacy would be an intervention in the internal affairs of another State.

Doctrine of Unequal Treaties

The doctrine posits that treaties which have been imposed through coercion or duress by a State of
unequal character are void.

Protocol de Clôture
It is a final act and an instrument which records the winding up of the proceedings of a diplomatic
conference and usually includes a reproduction of the texts of treaties, conventions, recommendations
and other acts agreed upon and signed by the plenipotentiaries attending the conference.

Doctrine of rebus sic stantibus

It states that a fundamental change of circumstances which determined the parties to accept a treaty,
if it has resulted in a radical transformation of the extent of the obligations imposed by it, may under
certain conditions, afford the party affected a ground to invoke the termination of the treaty.
The change must have increased the burden of the obligations to be executed to the extent of
rendering performance essentially different from the original intention.

Requisites of rebus sic stantibus (Not-IR, Must-URIS)

1. The change must not have been caused by the party Invoking the doctrine
2. The doctrine cannot operate Retroactively, i.e., it must not adversely affect provisions which have
already been complied with prior to the vital change in the situation
3. The change must have been Unforeseen or unforeseeable at the time of the perfection of the treaty
4. The doctrine must be invoked within a Reasonable time
5. The duration of the treaty must be Indefinite
6. The change must be so Substantial that the foundation of the treaty must have altogether
disappeared

Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance

It states that an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he
has already renounced it under the law of another State whose nationality he has acquired.

Doctrine of Effective Nationality

A person having more than one nationality shall be treated as if he had only one –either the nationality
of the country in which he is habitually and principally resident or the nationality of the country with
which in the circumstances he appears to be in fact most closely connected.
NOTE: Also known as Nottebohm principle (International Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v.
Guatemala, 1955) or the Genuine Link Doctrine

Doctrine of Genuine Link

It states that the bond of nationality must be real and effective in order that a State may claim a person
as its national for the purpose of affording him diplomatic protection.

Doctrine of State Responsibility (2010 Bar)

A State may be held responsible for an international delinquency, directly or indirectly, imputable to it
which causes injury to the national of another State. Liability will attach to the State where its
treatment of the alien falls below the international standard of justice or where it is remiss in according
him the protection or redress that is warranted by the circumstances.

Calvo Clause
A stipulation by which an alien waives or restricts his right to appeal to his own state in connection with
any claim arising from the contract and agrees to limit himself to the remedies available under the laws
of the local state.
NOTE: This cannot be interpreted to deprive the alien’s state of the right to protect or vindicate his
interests in case they are injured in another state, as such waiver can legally be made not by the alien
but by his own state.

TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE
A state has absolute, but not necessarily exclusive, power to prescribe, adjudicate and enforce rules of
conduct that occurs within its territory. (2005, 2009 Bar)
NOTE: An aspect of this principle is the “Effects Doctrine” – which provides that a state has jurisdiction
over acts occurring outside its territory but having effects within it.
Extra-territoriality
The exemption of foreign persons from the jurisdiction of the State of residence and it arises from
treaty provisions.

PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE

It authorizes states to assert jurisdiction over offenses committed against their citizens abroad. It
recognizes that each state has a legitimate interest in protecting the safety of its citizens when they
journey outside national boundaries.

Act of State Doctrine

A State should not inquire into the legal validity of the public acts of another State done

Doctrine of Continuous Voyage or Continuous Transport

Goods immediately reloaded at an intermediate port on the same vessel, or reloaded on another
vessel or other forms of transportation may also be seized on the basis of doctrine of ultimate
consumption.
Doctrine of Ultimate Consumption
Goods intended for civilian use which may ultimately find their way to and be consumed by belligerent
forces may be seized on the way.

Doctrine of Infection
Innocent goods shipped with contraband may also be seized.

Doctrine of Ultimate Destination

The liability of the contraband from being captured is determined not by their ostensible but by their
real

Archipelagic Doctrine (2016 Bar)

Art. I, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution adopts the archipelagic doctrine. It provides that the national
territory of the Philippines includes the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein; and the waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.

Thalweg Doctrine
It provides that for boundary rivers, in the absence of an agreement between the riparian States, the
boundary line is laid in the middle of the main navigable channel.

Doctrine of Hot Pursuit

It provides that the pursuit of a vessel maybe undertaken by the coastal State which has “good reason
to believe that the ship has violated the laws and regulations of that State”.