STATE IMMUNITY:

US v. Hon Ruiz
A state may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to the exercise
of its sovereign functions.
APPLIED IN THE CASE: In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is devoted to the defense of
both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government of the highest order; they are not
utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.

Republic v Hon. Hidalgo

It is settled that when the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained
execution against it. Tersely put, when the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an
opportunity to prove, if it can, that the state has a liability.
The functions and public services rendered by the State cannot be allowed to paralyzed or disrupted by the
diversion of public funds from their legitimate and specific objects, as appropriated by law

Municipality of Makati v CA
It is a well-settled rule that public funds are not subject to levy and execution. Unless otherwise, provided for by statute.
More particularly, the properties of a municipality, whether real or personal, which are necessary for public use cannot be
attached and sold at execution sale to satisfy a money judgment against the municipality. Municipal revenues derived
from taxes, licenses and market fees, and which are intended primarily and exclusively for the purpose of financing the
governmental activities and functions of the municipality are exempt from execution.

The states inherent power of eminent domain as to just compensation provides that not only the correct determination of
the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking.
Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered just for the property owner is made to suffer the
consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually
receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.

UP v Hon. Dizon
The adverse judgment rendered against the UP in a suit to which it had impliedly consented was not immediately
enforceable by execution against the UP, because suability of the State did not necessarily mean its liability. An
appropriation by Congress was required before the judgment that rendered the UP liable for moral and actual damages
(including attorneys fees) would be satisfied considering that such monetary liabilities were not covered by the
appropriations earmarked for the said project. The Constitution strictly mandated that no money shall be paid out of the
Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

Arigo v Swift
The general rule on states immunity from suit applies in this case.
First, any waiver of State immunity under the VFA pertains only to criminal jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such
as for the issuance of the writ of kalikasan. Hence, contrary to petitioners claim, the US government could not be deemed
to have waived its immunity from suit.
Second, the US respondents were sued in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who have control
and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. Since the satisfaction of any judgment against these officials would
require remedial actions and the appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against the
US itself. Thus, the principle of State Immunity in correlation with the principle of States as sovereign equals par in
parem non habet non imperium bars the exercise of jurisdiction by the court over their persons.

CNEMG v Santamaria
While CNMEG is a state corporation owned and operated by the Peoples Republic of China, it is clear that CNMEG
entered into the contract inview of its proprietary functions, rather than governmental. Clearly, it was CNMEG that initiated
the undertaking, and not the Chinese government. Letters from the Chinese ambassador
make it clear that CNMEG, and not the Chinese government, initiated the Northrail Project. Thus, the desire of CNMEG to
secure the Northrail Project was in the ordinary or regular course of its business as a global construction company.The
Petitioner is NOT immune from suit.

Liang v People
Immunity under Sec. 45 (a) of the Agreement qualifies immunity with the clause in their official capacity.
Slandering a person is not an act covered in immunity, because the commission of crime cannot be considered an official
duty. Acts outside his official functions are not covered by immunity
Republic v Sps. Benigno
As a matter of doctrine, illegal acts of government agents do not bind the State, and the Government is never estopped
from questioning the acts of its officials, more so if they are erroneous, let alone irregular. 47 This principle applies in land
registration cases.48 Certainly, the State will not be allowed to abdicate its authority over lands of the public domain just
because its agents and officers have been negligent in the performance of their duties. Under the Regalian doctrine, all
lands of the public domain belong to the State, and the State is the source of any asserted right to ownership in land and
charged with the conservation of such patrimony.

SEPARATION OF POWERS AND CHECKS AND BALANCES

Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v Cabiles

RA 8042 (a legislative act) Migrant Workers & Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 is unconstitutional. It does not FULLY
protect OFWs. Enforcement thru POEA (part of Executive Branch)

Senate Pres. Ople v Exec Sec. Torres

A.O. 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an administrative order but by a law. It expands the
limit of administrative legislation and consequently erodes the plenary power of Congress. The argument that it
implements the Administrative Code of 1987 could not hold ground as it is a general law and only incorporates in a
unified document the major structural, functional and procedural principles of governance. It establishes for the first time a
National Computerized Identification System which requires the delicate adjustment of various contending state policies.
Administrative Order - An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in
the administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the sole purpose of
implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.

KMU v NEDA
The Uniform ID System may be implemented by Executive Order. EO 420 does NOT usurp the power of the legislature,
because it is not a Natl ID System. It functions as an ID for administrative agencies which are already under the aegis
of control & supervision of the office of the president. Under the Constitution, the President has control of all executive
departments, bureaus, & offices. Such power of the President is self-executing & is limited to Executive Branch. In
issuing said EO, the Pres. is only performing the duty to ensure that laws are faithfully executed; it is only an executive
issuance, not an act of legislation.

SENATE v EXEC SEC. ERMITA

EO 464 Sections 3, in relation to 2(b), frustrate the power of inquiry of Congress. The claim of privilege stated in the order
is unclear and merely implied. Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch whenever it is
sought in aid of legislation. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, the body
shall be compelled to ascertain the importance and value of the usage of such privilege.

MAMISCAL v ABDULLAH
The administrative supervision belongs to the municipal and city mayors of the respective local government units. It
becomes apparent that SC Court does not have jurisdiction to impose the proper disciplinary action against civil registrars
or Clerk of Court of the Sharia.

ARROYO v DE VENECIA
It is clear from the foregoing facts that what is alleged to have been violated in the enactment of R.A. No. 8240 are merely
internal rules of procedure of the House rather than constitutional requirements for the enactment of a law. There was no
private right that was violated but only those persons who raise the issue to the Court instead of clarifying such acts to the
House itself. The court believes that it has no power to intervene in the House no more than the House to the Court. This
is also in compliance to the separation of powers of government.
DELEGATION OF POWERS

ARANETA V DINGLASAN
Congress can delegate to the President the power to enact laws ONLY WITHIN the period of war.

SOUTHERN CROSS CEMENT CORP. v CEMENT MANUFACTURERS OF THE PHIL.

The required positive final determination of the Tariff Commission exists as a properly enacted constitutional limitation
imposed on the delegation of the legislative power to impose tariffs and imposts to the President under Section 28(2),
Article VI of the Constitution. The authority delegated to the President may be exercised by his/her alter egos, such as
department secretaries. For purposes of the Presidents exercise of power to impose tariffs, it is generally the Secretary of
Finance who acts as the alter ego of the President. However in this case, the SMA empowered the DTI Secretary, as alter
ego of the President to impose definitive general safeguard measures, which basically are tariff imposts of the type
spoken of in the Constitution. However, the law did not grant him full, uninhibited discretion to impose such measures.
The DTI Secretary authority is derived from the SMA; it does not flow from any inherent executive power.

VICE PRES. PELAEZ v AUDITOR GENERAL

The SC declared that the power to create municipalities is essentially legislative character and not administrative.

SEMA v COMELEC
The creation of legislative districts is vested solely in Congress. At most, what ARMM can create are barangays not cities
and provinces.

NPC DAMA v NPC

A Transition Team was constituted to manage and implement the NPCs Separation Program. Delegation NOT valid. In
enumerating under Section 48, those who shall compose the National Power Board of Director, the legislature has vested
upon these persons the power to exercise their judgement and discretion in running the affairs of the NPC based on
personal qualifications. Hence, Department Secretaries cannot delegate their duties to vote and approve board
resolutions. However, practical administrative procedures can be delegated.

HEIRS OF LATAYAN V TAN

SC refuses to rule on the validity of the CARP coverage of the subject properties and the issuance of the assailed CLOAs.
The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction precludes the courts from resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction was initially
lodged with an administrative body of special competence . The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not allow a court to
arrogate unto itself authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative
body of special competence. The Office of the DAR Secretary is in a better position to resolve the particular issue of non-
issuance of a notice of coverage an ALI case being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the
matter. The power to determine such issue lies with the DAR, not with the SC.

MOVERTRADE CORPORATION v Commission on Audit

There is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COA in denying petitioners money claim as the evidence on record
undoubtedly supports the factual findings of respondent COA. We need not belabor that in the absence of grave abuse of
discretion, the decisions and resolutions of respondent COA are accorded not only with respect but also with finality, not
only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers, but also of its presumed expertise in the laws it is entrusted to
enforce.
STATE PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

MAQUERA v BORRA
Imposition of property qualifications is inconsistent with the nature and essence of the republican system ordained in the
Constitution and the principle of social justice underlying the same. RA 4421 is unconstitutional as it provides for property
qualifications which is not among the requirements set by the Constitution for candidates to public offices.

VILLAVICENCIO v MAYOR LUKBAN

We are a government of laws and not of men. There is no law which provides the mayor with the authority to force said
women to change their domicile from Manila to Davao against their will. His intentions to suppress the social evil was
commendable however his methods were unlawful.

PEOPLE v VENERACION
The Supreme Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose the proper penalty provided for
by law on the accused regardless of his own religious or moral beliefs. The discomfort faced by those forced by law to
impose the death penalty is an ancient one, but is a matter upon which judges have no choice. This is consistent in the
rule laid down in the Civil Code Article 9, that no judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence,
obscurity, or insufficiency of the laws.

PARRENO v COMMISSION ON AUDIT

The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not absolute but is subject to reasonable classification.To be
reasonable, the classification (a) must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; (b) must be
germane to the purpose of the law; (c) must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (d) must apply equally to each
member of the class. There is compliance with all these conditions. There is a substantial difference between retirees who
are citizens of the Philippines and retirees who lost their Filipino citizenship by naturalization in another country, such as
petitioner in the case before us.

CALALANG V WILLIAMS
Public welfare lies at the bottom of enactment of the said law, the state in order to promote the general welfare may
interfere with personal liberty, with property and with business and occupations. Persons and property may be subjected
to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state. To this
fundamental aim of the government, the rights of an individual are subordinated.

PLDT v NLRC
Separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly
dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. The policy of social justice
is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. At best it may mitigate
the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society
but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege.

QUIAMBAO v MANILA ELECTRIC Co.

A series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct. That gross neglect of duty becomes
serious in character due to frequency of instances. Serious misconduct is said to be a transgression of some established
and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and indicative of wrongful intent and
not mere error of judgement.

IMBONG v OCHOA
The Constitution in Section 12 clarifies that the State protects the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The Constitution should be interpreted in their plain and literal ordinary meaning. Conception then means in
all reputable sources is the life that begins at fertilization. It is the fecundation (could be read as union) of the female ovum
by the spermatozoon resulting in human life capable of surviving and maturation under normal conditions. The court has a
reason to believe that the RH Law is a control measure since the corpus of the law is reduction of the countrys population
as it also promotes pregnancy-preventing products. It also emphasize in its introduction that the marginalized need to be
provided with full range of modern family planning products and methods. The Court believes that the Congress has no
reason to intentionally deceive the public as to the contents of the assailed legislation by naming it as reproductive
health and responsible parenthood.
OPOSA v FACTORAN
Petitioners' personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned. The minors'
assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
that right for the generations yet to come. The right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Sec. 16 Art. 2 of the 1987
Constitution), was for the first time incorporated in the fundamental law. The said right carries with it the correlative duty
to refrain from impairing the environment. the court stated that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not
even be written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to
exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance with intergenerational implications.

MMDA v CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY

MMDA's duty to put up an adequate and appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other
alternative garbage disposal system is ministerial, its duty being a statutory imposition and thus cannot be characterized
as discretionary.

BORACAY FOUNDATION v PROVINCE OF AKLAN

There should be prior consultation and prior approval of the LGU concerned.

SEC. PAJE v CASINO

Environmental advocacy is not only about passion. It is also about responsibility. There are communities with almost no
resources and are at a disadvantage against large projects that might impact on their livelihoods. Those that take the
cudgels lead them as they assert their ecological rights must show that they have both the professionalism and the
capability to carry their cause forward. When they file a case to protect the interests of those who they represent, they
should be able to make both allegation and proof. The dangers from an improperly managed environmental case are as
real to the communities sought to be represented as the dangers from a project by proponents who do not consider their
interests.

MANILA MEMORIAL PARK v SEC. OF SOCIAL WELFARE

Section 4 of RA No.9257 and its implementing rules and regulations are not unconstitutional since it is an exercise of a
police power. The law is a legitimate exercise of police power which has general welfare of tis object. Police power has
been described as the most essential, insistent and the least limitable powers, extending as it does to all the great public
needs. For this reason, when the conditions so demand, property rights must bow to the primacy of police power,
because property rights, though sheltered by due process, must yield to general welfare.