Arguably, the United Kingdom would come under this heading.
The US doctrine is that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights", viz. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and that – being "unalienable [sic]" – the Government has (in principle) no say over those rights. Admittedly that's from the Declaration of Independence rather than from the Constitution, but I think it sums up the principles quite well even if it's (arguably) not legally binding, and it's certainly in line with the question's interpretation of the situation.
In contrast, the British Constitution works under a principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, i.e.
Parliament [is] the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.
– taken from Parliament's website
Seeing as there's nothing that Parliament can't change, the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty would seem to suggest that all rights are granted to the people by Parliament, and therefore are subject to Parliament's whims. As it so happens, these days Parliament is (predominantly) popularly-elected, but that's not a necessary condition for its existence: it was a right granted to the people by Parliament and it, just like any other right, could be withdrawn.
Practically speaking, with the consent of the governed those "unalianable" rights of US citizens could be alienated – if they should, en masse, choose to give up some or all of those rights to life or liberty. And practically speaking, the "limitless" power of the British Parliament is restrained by international opinion, cultural norms, and angry mobs with pointy sticks.