Doctrine of
State immunity from suit.
The
basic postulate enshrined in the Constitution that “[t]he State may not be sued
without its consent,” reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign
character of the State and an express affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very
essence of sovereignty. As has been
aptly observed by Justice Holmes, a sovereign is exempt from suit, not because
of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical
ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the
law on which the right depends. True, the doctrine, not too infrequently, is
derisively called “the royal prerogative of dishonesty” because it grants the
state the prerogative to defeat any legitimate claim against it by simply
invoking its non-suability. We have had occasion to explain in its defense,
however, that a continued adherence to the doctrine of non-suability cannot be
deplored, for the loss of governmental efficiency and the obstacle to the
performance of its multifarious functions would be far greater in severity than
the inconvenience that may be caused private parties, if such fundamental
principle is to be abandoned and the availability of judicial remedy is not to
be accordingly restricted. (Department
of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, Nov. 11, 1993 [Vitug]
Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy
Under the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy, 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. 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, 267 SCRA 408 [1997] [Bellosillo])
No comments:
Post a Comment