POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER

Prelims

1. Proposal
2. Ratification through plebiscite

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Constitution: Parts of a Written Constitution

Constitution of Government- outlines the organization and structure of the
government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its
administration and defining the electorate.
Constitution of Liberty- series of prescriptions setting forth fundamental civil
and political rights of the citizens and the limitation of the powers of the
government to ensure the enjoyment of such rights.
Constitution of Sovereignty- points out the procedure or mode by which the
fundamental law may be formally changed

Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS

Self-executing provisions- complete in itself and becomes operative without
the aid of operating and enabling legislation, or that which supplies sufficient
rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected
-by its language, does not require any legislation for it to become effective
Non-self-executing provisions- lays down a general principle, remains
dormant unless it is activated by legislative implementation
In case of doubt, the constitution should be considered as self-executing
Taada vs Angara
Article II of the Constitution by its name, Declaration of Principles
and State Policies, are not intended to be self-executing provisions ready for
enforcement through the courts. They are used by the judiciary as aids or
guides in the exercise of power of judicial review.
Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality of a Law
*Before a law is declared unconstitutional, it enjoys the presumption of
constitutionality
Orthodox View- 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, in legal
contemplation, inoperative, as if it had not been passed. It is therefore
stricken in statute books and considered to have never existed at all. All
persons are bound by the declaration of unconstitutionality, which means
that no one may thereafter invoke it nor may the courts be permitted to
apply it in subsequent cases.
Modern View- does not annul or repeal the stature if it finds it I conflict with
the constitution. It simply refuses to recognize it and determines the rights of
the parties just as if such statute had no existence. The decision affects the
parties only and there is no judgment as to the statute.
Modern
Simply
ignored
unrecognized
Parties involved

Not permitted to apply it

in subsequent cases

May operate as precedent for

the determination of other
cases

R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on

amendments to the Constitution. The law only deals with the amendments
and revisions of national and local laws. It did not contemplate the
amendments to be done in the constitution through initiative. The insertion
of initiative on amendments of the Constitution is clearly an afterthought.
Likewise, the provision in the said Act is unconstitutional since the action
through Peoples initiative is only amendments in the Constitution.
The State
Distinguish a State from a Nation
State is a legal concept whereas a nation is a racial or ethnic concept.
Examples: USA- one state, many nations
Arab Nation- many states, one nation
Palestinians- nation without territory
State- a community of persons, permanently occupying a definite portion of
territory, having an independent government to which a great body of
inhabitants renders habitual obedience.
Elements of a State
1. People
2. Territory
3. Government
4. Sovereignty
People- numerous enough to be self-sufficient
- small enough to be easily administered
- both sexes to facilitate procreation

or

Amendments or Revisions
Modes of Proposing Amendments or Revisions
1. 2/3 vote of all the members of the Congress as a Constituent Assembly
2. Constitutional Convention
3. Peoples initiative(amendments only)
Amendment- a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the
basic principle involved.
Revision- a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution

Political Law 1

Santiago vs COMELEC

Territory- consists of the portion of the surface of the globe on which the
State settles, covering not only land, but the atmosphere as well.

Orthodox
Stricken in statute books,
null and void
Everyone

Stages of Amendment or Revisions

Constitutional Convention
1. 2/3 votes of all the members of the Congress
2. Majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of
calling such a convention

Peoples Initiative on the Constitution

Sec 2, Art XVII: 12% of the registered voters where every
legislative district is represented by 3% of its registered voters. The Congress
will provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Provisions

Status of the
Statute
Persons
bound
Effects in
Court

Revision tests(Lambino vs COMELEC)

Quantitative Test- changes the substantial entirety of the constitution by
deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions.
Qualitative Test- changes that accomplish such far reaching changes in the
nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.

Modes of acquiring territory

a. Discovery and occupation
b. Prescription
c. Cession
d. Conquest
e. Accretion
Government- agency through which the will of the State is formulated,
expressed and realized.
-Principal: State, Agent: Government
-Acts of the agent are deemed to be the acts of the principal
-Mandate: Promote the welfare of the people
-Only beneficial acts are attributed to the State
Kinds of Government as to Creation
a. De Jure- legitimate and lawful government established by authority of the
legitimate sovereign powers
b. De Facto- existence maintained by force
-may be through revolution, paramount force, secession

Page 1

Functions of the Government

a. Constituent- compulsory, very bonds of society cannot be abrogated
-ex: punishment of crimes, justice, determination of contracts, fixing
relationship between families
b. Ministrant- undertaken to advance the general interest of society
- ex: public works, agrarian reform, public charity

normal definition of the State does not apply with the Vatican City since its
purpose is entirely different from other states. The world-wide interests and
activities of the Vatican City are such as to make it in a sense an
international state. The treatment other states give to the Vatican City also
reinforces its statehood. The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the
Holy See the status of a foreign sovereign by how we treat him.
The Concept of an Associated State

*Distinction is blurred because of repudiation of the laissez-faire policy or the

Let alone policy. These functions while traditionally regarded as merely
ministrant and optional, have been made compulsory by the Constitution.

Sovereignty- supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which

the state is governed.
Kinds of Sovereignty
a. Legal- the power to issue final commands
b. Political- power behind the legal sovereign
c. Internal- power of the State to govern domestic affairs
d. External- power of the State to direct its relations with other states
- Independence
Characteristics of Sovereignty
a. Permanence
b. Exclusivity
c. Comprehensiveness
d. Absoluteness
e. Individuality
f. Inalienability
g. Imprescriptibility
*In the course of Philippine history, when the Treaty of Paris was executed
on December 10, 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the USA thereby
transferring the sovereignty from Spain to the USA.
*There was no transfer of sovereignty when the Japanese occupied the
Philippines. The Japanese government were merely doing acts of sovereignty
for there was no formal transfer of sovereignty.
Effects of Changes in Sovereignty(Spain- USA)
-Political laws are abrogated for there is a change in the relationship
between the ruler and the ruled
-Non-political laws are still in operation for they merely regulate the
relationship between private individuals.
(USA-JAPAN)
-Japan was only doing acts of sovereignty
-Political laws were merely suspended subject to revival upon the end of
occupation by virtue of Jus Postliminii(the right to claim property after
recapture)
-Non-political laws are still in operation
Judicial Decisions
-For cases decided which were of non-political complexion are still valid upon
the return of the sovereign power
Ruffy vs Chief of Staff
-Suspension of political laws only apply to civilians
-Military officials are still governed by the National Defense Act and the
Articles of War
Laurel vs Misa
-Suspension of political laws do not apply to treason although treason is a
species of international law
-Treason is still punishable under the Revised Penal Code

Is the Vatican a State?

The Province of North Cotabato vs The Government of the Republic of the

Philippines Peace Panel
Association- formed when two states of unequal power voluntarily establish
durable links wherein one state the associate, delegates certain
responsibilities to the other, the principal while maintaining its international
status as a state. It is also a transitional device of former colonies on their
way to full independence
The MOA-AD describes the relationship between the Central
Government(Government of the Philippines) and the Bangsamoro Juridical
Entity as associative characterized by shared authority and responsibility.
Since the MOA-AD used the concept of associated state and included
international law instruments, the international law definition of an
associated state shall apply.
The present constitution does not recognize the concept of
association. The only state which the Constitution recognizes is the Philippine
State. This concept implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted by
the Constitution.

Is Sovereignty really absolute?

Taada vs Angara
No. Sovereignty is only deemed absolute and all-encompassing on
the
domestic level. It is however subject to the restrictions and
limitations voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly, as
a member of the family of nations. Treaties really limit or restrict the
absoluteness of sovereignty. Nations may surrender some aspects of their
state power in exchange for greater benefits. A portion of sovereignty may
be waived without violating the constitution based on Sec 2, Art II of the
Constitution itself.
The National Territory
Art 1 The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago,
with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories
over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its
terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed,
the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. 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.
Archipelagic Doctrine- emphasizes the unity of the land and waters or a body
of water studded with islands
Straight Baseline Method- requires that baselines be drawn by the outermost
points of the outermost islands of the archipelago
Components of a National Territory
a. Terrestrial or Land Domain
b. Maritime Domain
c. Aerial Domain
Terrestrial or Land Domain- includes all the lands and the internal
waters(rivers, lakes, ports, harbors)
Right of Innocent Passage- right of continuous and expeditious navigation of
a foreign ship through the TERRITORIAL SEA of a state for the purpose of
traversing that sea without entering the internal waters.

The Holy See vs Judge Rosario, Jr.

Italy and the Holy See signed the Lateran Treaty wherein Italy
recognizes the exclusive dominion and sovereign jurisdiction of the Holy See
in the Vatican City. This treaty established the statehood of Vatican City. The

Political Law 1

Right of Transit Passage- similar to right of innocent passage but may only be
invoked when traversing a strait
Maritime Domain

Page 2

a. Territorial Sea- 12 nautical miles

b. Contiguous Zone- 24 nautical miles
c. Exclusive Economic Zone
d. Continental Shelf
e. High Seas
Aerial Domain- the airspace above the land and maritime domain of the state
-no right of innocent passage may be invoked
Spratlys Group of Islands and Scarborough Shoal
-Although they are not part of the Philippine Archipelago, they are still part
of the National Territory of the Philippines. To include Spratlys islands into
the archipelagic baselines of the country would be a direct violation of
UNCLOS III which the Philippines is a signatory.
Scarborough Shoal
-Shoal: sand deposit or shallow portion of a river or seas visible only during
low tide
-Near the coast of Masinloc, Zambales(124 nautical miles) and within the 200
miles exclusive economic zone
Spratlys Islands
-discovered by Tomas Cloma in the 1950s
-formerly known as the Republic of Cloma
-considered as Terranullius or belonging to no one
-surrendered to President Marcos
-PD 1596: Kalayaan Islands under the province of Palawan
-Philippines has occupied the largest island-Pag-asa and holds elections in the
area
Doctrine of Effective Occupation
-discovery is not enough
-inchoate right only for discovery over the territory
-discovery must be followed by effective occupation during a reasonable
time
Fundamental Principles and State Policies
Sec 1: Democratic and Republican State
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them.
Democracy- a government for, of and by the people
-participation in government through; suffrage, plebiscite, initiative and
referendum, and recall
Republicanism- representatives and renovation
a. Government of laws, not men
b. Periodic elections
c. Separation of powers and checks and balances
d. Legislature cannot enact irrepealable laws
Characteristics of Public Office in a Democratic and Republican State
1. A public trust
2. Not a hereditable possession
3. Outside the commerce of man
4. Not a property
Impeachment
The following are subject to impeachment
1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Justices of the Supreme Court
4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions
5. Ombudsman
Grounds for Impeachment
1. Culpable violation of the Constitution
2. Treason
3. Bribery(RA 3019)
4. Graft and Corruption
5. Other High crimes

Political Law 1

6. Betrayal of Public Trust

Limitation: No impeachment proceedings hall be initiated against the same
official more than once within the period of one year.
Forum: The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to
initiate all cases of impeachment
Procedure for Impeachment
A. Initiation Stage- determines whether there is a prima facie against the
officer that merits a full blown trial in the Senate
1. If initiated by less than 1/3 of the House of Representatives
a. A verified complaint for impeachment is filed with the House of
Representatives by (1) a member of the House or (2) any citizen upon a
resolution of endorsement by any member of the House.
b. The complaint must be included in the Order of Business within
10 session days upon receipt thereof.
c. Not later than 3 session days after, including the complaint in
the Order of Business, it must be referred (by the Speaker) to the proper
Committee(usually, the Committee on Justice and Order)
d. The Committee has 60 session days from receipt of the referral
to conduct hearings to see if there is probable cause, to vote by an absolute
majority, and to submit report and its resolution to the House.
e. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration and
general discussion by the House within 10 session days from the receipt
thereof.
f. After discussion, a vote is taken, with the vote of each member
recorded. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House is needed to
affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the
Committee, or to override its contrary resolution
*If favorable- 1/3 needed to approve such recommendation
*If unfavorable- 1/3 needed to disapprove or override this report
2. If initiated by 1/3 of the House of Representatives
* If the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least
1/3 of all the members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of
Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed
*This means that the entire process is cut short. There is no need for a
Committee report and discussion anymore, since the end result is that 1/3 of
the members of the House have decided to send the case for trial.
B. Trial Stage
1. The Articles of Impeachment of the Committee is forwarded to the Senate,
which has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment for trial.
2. When sitting for the purpose of trying an impeachment case, the Senators
shall be on oath or affirma tion.
3. As a general rule, the President of the Senate presides over an
impeachment trial. But when it is the President of the Philippines who is on
trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall be the presiding officer, but
he shall not vote.
4. To carry out a conviction, the vote of 2/3 of all the members of the
Senate(16) is required. If less than 2/3 vote that the officer is guilty, the
effect is acquittal.
5. The judgment of the Senate is a political question that cannot be reviewed
by the Court
Effect of the Impeachment
a. Removal from office of the official concerned
b. Disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines
c. Officer still liable to prosecution, trial, and punishment if the impeachable
offense committed also constitutes a felony or crime.

Sec 2: War and International Laws

Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law
as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
Doctrine of Incorporation- rules of international law form part of the laws of
the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules
applicable in the domestic sphere.

Page 3

Only aggressive war is prohibited under Sec 2 , Art II

The Philippines adherence to the Doctrine of Incorporation in International

Law
Doctrine of Equality of All States- one State cannot assert jurisdiction over
another in violation of the maxim par in parem non habet imperium. To do so
would unduly vex the peace of nations
Pacta Sunt Servanda- International agreements must be performed in good
faith. A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a
legally binding obligation of parties. A state which has contracted a valid
international obligation is bound to make in its legislation such modifications
as may be necessary to ensure fulfillment of the obligation undertaken.

The Right to self-determination of Peoples

Internal self-determination- a people's pursuit of its political, economic,
social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state.
External self-determination- which in this case potentially takes the form of
the assertion of a right to unilateral secession arises in only the most
extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined circumstances. The
establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or
integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other
political status freely determined by apeople constitute modes of
implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
Yogyakarta Principles
The Yogyakarta Principles which the petitioner invoked is a set of
international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity,
intended to address documented evidence of abuse of rights of LGBTs. (See
footnote number 52, pg 77) Some norms contained in these set of principles
are not obligatory in the Philippines although being part of International law.
The said principles do not reflect the current status of international law.
These principles may be considered as soft law which is an expression of
non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior.

Civilian Supremacy Clause

Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the
military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people
and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the
integrity of the national territory.
Sec 3: Civilian Supremacy
Ensured by:
a. AFP Chief- President
b. AFPs oath to uphold constitution
c. professionalization of military
d. insulation of AFP from politics
e. prohibition to hold civil position
f. compulsory retirement
g. 3 yr limitation of Chief of Staff
h. Professional recruitment
i. Police force under executive management

Art 2, Sec 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and
harmony of nature.
Oposa vs Factoran
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology does not belong to
the bill of rights for it is of a different category. While the Bill of Rights
enumerates civil and political rights, Sec 16 states a right to self-preservation
and self-perpetuation.
As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even be written in
the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the inception of
humankind
imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to preserve the
first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too far when
all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for those
to come generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth
incapable of sustaining life.
The Filipino First Policy
Art 12, Sec 16, 2nd par. In the grant of rights, privileges, and
concessions covering the national economy and patrimony, the State shall
give preference to qualified Filipinos.
Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS
National Economy and Patrimony not only involves natural
resources but also the cultural heritage of the country. Manila Hotel, as an
historical landmark, belongs to the National Patrimony of the State.
For sure, 51% of the equity of the MHC comes within the
purview of the constitutional shelter for it comprises the majority and
controlling stock, so that anyone who acquires or owns the 51% will have
actual control and management of the hotel.
Academic Freedom of Institutions of Higher Learning
Art 14, Sec 5, 2nd par Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning.
Miriam College Foundation, Inc VS CA
This institutional academic freedom includes the right of the
school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives and how best to
attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when
the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. The essential freedoms
subsumed are the ff;
a. Who may teach
b. What may be taught
c. How it shall be taught
d. Who may be admitted to study
The right of the school to discipline its students is at once
apparent in the third freedom. Likewise in the who may be admitted to
study contains the right to determine whom to exclude or expel.
University of San Agustin vs CA
Since a contract creates reciprocal rights and obligations, the
obligation of the school to educate a student would imply a corresponding
obligation on the part of student to study and obey the rules and regulations
of the school. They school is also afforded ample discretion to formulate
reasonable rules and regulations in the admission of students, including
setting academic standards.

IBP vs Zamora
The deployment of the Philippine Marines in the conduct of joint
visibility patrols does not constitute a breach of civilian supremacy. For a
breach of the civilian supremacy be established there must be am exercise of
regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory military power. Moreover, the local
police force is in charge of the said operation.
Right to a Balanced and Healthful Ecology

Political Law 1

Isabelo, Jr. vs Perpetual College of Rizal, Inc.

Academic Freedom has never been meant to be an unabridged
license. The punishment of expulsion appears to us rather disproportionate
to his having had deficiencies in his CMT course.
UP Board of Regents vs CA
The academic freedom of a university does not terminate upon
the graduation of a student, for it is precisely the graduation of the student
which is in question. An institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if
it discovers that an academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully
deserved. The pursuit of academic excellence is the universitys concern. It

Page 4

should be empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take measures to protect

itself from serious threats to its integrity.

POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER

Finals

The Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

BASIS:
Constitution: Art 16, Sec 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
Positivist Theory: There can be no legal right as against the authority that
makes the laws on which the right depends.
Sociological Theory: If the State is amenable to suits, all its time would be
spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent it from performing
its other functions

Doctrine of Separation of Powers

In essence, separation of powers means that legislation belongs to
Congress, execution to the executive, settlement of legal controversies to the
judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of others.
Purpose: Intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person or
group of persons that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its
exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions.
-intended to secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and
to obtain efficiency.

Waiver of State Immunity

Department of Agriculture vs NLRC
The State may not be sued without its consent reflects nothing
than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and express
affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction
of courts.
There can be no legal right against the authority that makes the
law which the right depends. It is also called the Royal Prerogative of
Dishonesty. Moreover, the loss of governmental efficiency and the obstavle
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.
Express Consent- made through a general or special law.
- ex: Act 3083: monetary claims arising from a contract
- PD 1445: all monetary claims must be first brought to the Commission on
Audit
Implied Consent- when the State itself commences the litigation
-when it enters into a contract; jure gestionis
Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a
waiver of its non-suability.
Suability vs Liability of the State
Liability is not conceded by the mere fact that the state has
allowed itself to be sued. When the state does waive its sovereign immunity,
it is only giving the plaintiff the chance to prove, if it can, that the defendant
is liable.
In the Matter of Execution to Satisfy Judgment against the State
The waiver of State immunity extends only to the rendition of
judgment. When it comes to the execution of judgment, another waiver is
required. Otherwise, the government will be paralyzed in performing its
function.

Principle of Checks and Balances

One department is allowed to resist encroachments upon its
prerogatives or to rectify mistakes or excesses committed by the other
departments.
The Constitution fixes certain limits on the independence of each
department. In order that these limits may be observed, the Constitution
gives each department certain powers by which it may definitely restrain the
other from exceeding their authority. A system of checks and balances is thus
formed. To carry out the system of checks and balances, the Constitution
provides:
1. The acts of the legislative department have to be presented to the
executive for approval or disapproval.
2. The executive department may veto the acts of the legislature if in its
judgment they are not in conformity with the Constitution or are detrimental
to the interests of the people.
3. The courts are authorized to determine the validity of legislative measures
or executive acts.
4. Through its pardoning power, the executive may modify or set aside the
judgments of the courts.
5. The legislature may pass laws that in effect amend or completely revoke
decisions of the courts if in its judgment they are not in harmony with its
intention or policy which is not contrary to the Constitution.
6. President must obtain the concurrence of Congress to complete certain
significant acts.
7. Money can be released from the treasury only by authority of Congress
Principle of Non-Delegation of Powers
What has been delegated cannot be delegated. It is based on
upon the ethical principle that such delegated power constitutes not only a
right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality
of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.
Permissible Delegation
1. Delegation of tariff powers of the President
2. Delegation of emergency powers to the President
3. Delegation to the people at large
4. Delegation to local governments
5. Delegation to administrative bodies
Delegation of Emergency Powers
The conditions for the vesture of emergency powers in the President are the
following:
1. There must be war or other national emergency.
2. The delegation must be for a limited time only.
3. The delegation must be subject to such restrictions as the Congress may
prescribe.
4. The emergency powers must be exercised to carry out a national policy
declared by Congress
Delegation to Local Governments
It is based on the recognition that local legislatures are more
knowledgeable than the national lawmaking body on matters purely of local
concern and are therefore in a better position to enact the necessary and
appropriate legislation thereon.
It is a grant of authority to prescribe local regulations, according
to the immemorial practice, subject, of course, to the interposition of the
superior in cases of necessity.
Test of a Valid Delegation of Powers

Political Law 1

Page 5

It is valid only if the law;

1. Complete in itself- setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried
out, or implemented by the delegate
2. Fixes a standard- the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and
determinable-to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Legislative Power- power to enact, repeal and amend laws
-gap of the law: only remedy is to amend the law
-judicial legislation: must be for the interpretation of the law only. It cannot
repeal laws
-not solely vested to the Congress( House of Representatives and Senate)
-some legislative power is given to the people through initiative and
referendum( RA 6735)

Qualifications of the Members of Congress

Common Qualifications: President, Vice President, Senators, Representatives
1. Natural Born Citizens
2. Able to read and write
3. Registered Voter
Age Requirement
40- President and Vice President on the day of elections
35- Senators
25- House of Representatives
Residency Requirement
10 years- President
2 years- Senator
1 year- in the district

Other Powers of the Congress

1. Electoral Tribunal
2. Impeachment Court
3. Board of Canvassers
4. Constituent Assembly
5. Declaration of the Existence of War
6. Commission of Appointments

Composition of the House of Representatives

Bicameral Conference Committee- mechanism of consolidating conflicting

bills of the House of Representatives and the Senate
-By the nature of its function, it is capable of producing results that may go
beyond its mandate and power.
-Third House of Congress

SEMA vs COMELEC
-Creation of a province entails the creation of a legislative district
-Only the Congress can create a legislative district
-The creation of a legislative district cannot be delegated to a lower
legislative body

Joint Oversight Committee

a. Scrutiny
b. Investigation
c. Supervision

Creation of a Local Government Unit

1. In accordance with the criteria established in the Local Government Code
2. Ratified through a plebiscite
3. Should not contravene the Constitution

Scrutiny
a. Budget Hearings
b. Question Hour
c. Confirmation

Party-List System

Budget Hearings- Congress shall scrutinize the budget as proposed by the

Department of Budget Management.
-The President proposes the budget to the Congress who shall appropriate it.
Question Hour (Sec 22, Art VI)- borrowed concept from the Parliamentary
form of government
-Heads of Departments may be questioned on matters regarding their
departments
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.
Confirmation- Commission of Appointments composed of the members of
the Congress who shall scrutinize the qualifications and merits of the
appointees of the President
Investigation (Sec 21, Art 6)- Inquires on the aid of legislation
-Intrinsic to the grant of legislative powers
-Congress needs information to effectively legislate laws
Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.
Supervision- Delegation to administrative bodies of quasi-legislative power
-To implement a law
-Before such IRR to take effect, it shall be approved by a joint oversight
committee or the Congress
-Legislative Veto: disapproval of a proposed IRR by the Congress

Political Law 1

Section 5. (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more

than two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law,
-functus officio(inoperative for it has served its purpose)
-because as of today, there are more than 250 congressmen

Formula
No. of district representatives
________________________ x
.8

.2 = No. of party-list representatives

-Borrowed concept from the Parliament system

-Purpose: Appropriate representation for the marginalized sectors of society
in the law making body
-Social justice tool
-RA 7941: Party-list law
Bagong Bayani OFW vs COMELEC
Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice
principle that those who have less in life should have more in law. The partylist system is one such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It
gives the great masses of our people genuine hope and genuine power.
The foregoing provision mandates a state policy of promoting proportional
representation by means of the Filipino-style party-list system, which will
"enable" the election to the House of Representatives of Filipino citizens,
1. Who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations
and parties; and
2. Who lack well-defined constituencies; but
3. Who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate
legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole.
"Proportional representation" here does not refer to the number of people in
a particular district, because the party-list election is national in scope.
Neither does it allude to numerical strength in a distressed or oppressed
group. Rather, it refers to the representation of the "marginalized and
underrepresented" as exemplified by the enumeration in Section 5 of the
law; namely, "labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas
workers, and professionals."

Page 6

Guidelines for screening Party-List Participants

1) The political party, sector, organization or coalition must represent the
marginalized and underrepresented groups identified in Section 5 of RA
7941. In other words, it must show through its constitution, articles of
incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track record
that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented
sectors. Verily, majority of its membership should belong to the marginalized
and underrepresented. And it must demonstrate that in a conflict of
interest, it has chosen or is likely to choose the interest of such sectors.
2) While even major political parties are expressly allowed by RA 7941 and
the Constitution to participate in the party-list system, they must comply
with the declared statutory policy of enabling Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to the House
of Representatives. In other words, while they are not disqualified merely
on the ground that they are political parties, they must show, however, that
they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.
3) In view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay
Hayaang Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the
express constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be
represented in the party-list system. x x x Furthermore, the Constitution
provides that religious denominations and sects shall not be registered.
(Sec. 2 [5], Article IX [C]) The prohibition was explained by a member of the
Constitutional Commission in this wise: *T+he prohibition is on any religious
organization registering as a political party. I do not see any prohibition here
against a priest running as a candidate. That is not prohibited here; it is the
registration of a religious sect as a political party.
4) A party or an organization must not be disqualified under Section 6 of RA
7941, which enumerates the grounds for disqualification as follows:
a)
It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or
association organized for religious
purposes;
b) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
c) It is a foreign party or organization;
d) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign
political party, foundation,
organization, whether directly or through
any of its officers or members or indirectly through
third
parties
for
partisan election purposes;
e) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations
relating to elections;
f) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
g) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
h) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or
fails to obtain at least two
per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the
party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in
which it had registered.
Note should be taken of paragraph 5, which disqualifies a party or group for
violation of or failure to comply with election laws and regulations. These
laws include Section 2 of RA 7941, which states that the party-list system
seeks to enable Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized and
underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties x x x to become
members of the House of Representatives. A party or organization,
therefore, that does not comply with this policy must be disqualified.
5)
The party or organization must not be an adjunct of, or a project
organized or an entity funded or assisted by, the government. By the very
nature of the party-list system, the party or organization must be a group of
citizens, organized by citizens and operated by citizens. It must be
independent of the government. The participation of the government or its
officials in the affairs of a party-list candidate is not only illegal and unfair to
other parties, but also deleterious to the objective of the law: to enable

Political Law 1

citizens belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors and

organization to be elected to the House of Representatives.
6) The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its
nominees must likewise do so. x x x
7)
Not only the candidate party or organization must represent
marginalized and underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees. To
repeat, under Section 2 of RA 7941, the nominees must be Filipino citizens
who belong to marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations
and parties. Surely, the interests of the youth cannot be fully represented
by a retiree; neither can those of the urban poor or the working class, by an
industrialist. To allow otherwise is to betray the State policy to give genuine
representation to the marginalized and underrepresented.

8) While lacking a well-defined political constituency, the nominee must

likewise be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole. x x x
Immunities and Privileges of Members of Congress
Section 11. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all
offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged
from arrest while the Congress is in session. No Member shall be questioned
nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress
or in any committee thereof.
People vs Jalosjos
The immunity from arrest or detention of Senators and members
of the House of Representatives x x x arises from a provision of the
Constitution. The history of the provision shows that the privilege has always
been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a
special privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its
terms. It may not be extended by intendment, implication or equitable
considerations.
The members of Congress cannot compel absent members to
attend sessions if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one. The
confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable by
imprisonment of more than six years is not merely authorized by law, it has
constitutional foundations.
The Incompatible Office and Forbidden Office with respect to members of
the Congress
Section 13. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold
any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have
been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which
he was elected.
Appearing as counsels in Court and Electoral Tribunals
Section 14. No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may
personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither
shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or
in any franchise or special privilege granted by the Government, or any
subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any governmentowned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office.
He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the Government for
his pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his
office.
The Bodies that are attached to the Congress
Commission on Appointments
SECTION 18. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the
President of the Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve

Page 7

Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis

of proportional representation from the political parties or organizations
registered under the party-list system represented therein. The Chairman of
the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall
act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the
Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote
of all the Members.
Electoral Tribunals in Congress
SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have
an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each
Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall
be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and
the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and the parties or
organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein. The
senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

The Power of each House of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of

legislation
Section 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its
respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.
Bengson vs Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation is not, therefore, absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is
circumscribed by the afore-quoted provision of the Constitution. Thus, as
provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in
accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the rights of
persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected." It
follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be
respected, including the right to due process and the right not to be
compelled to testify against one's self. The power to conduct formal
inquiries or investigations is specifically provided for in Sec. 1 of the Senate
Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation. Such inquiries
may refer to the implementation or re-examination of any law or in
connection with any proposed legislation or the formulation of future
legislation. They may also extend to any and all matters vested by the
Constitution in Congress and/or in the Senate alone. As held in Jean L.
Aznault vs. Leon Nazareno, et al., the inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of
the legislative body making it, must be material or necessary to the exercise
of a power in it vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate or to expel a
member. Under Sec. 4 of the aforementioned Rules, the Senate may refer to
any committee or committees any speech or resolution filed by any Senator
which in its judgment requires an appropriate inquiry in aid of legislation. In
order therefore to ascertain the character or nature of an inquiry, resort
must be had to the speech or resolution under which such an inquiry is
proposed to be made.
The critical element is the existence of, and the weight to be
ascribed to, the interest of the Congress in demanding disclosures from an
unwilling witness. We cannot simply assume, however, that every
congressional investigation is justified by a public need that over-balances
any private rights affected. To do so would be to abdicate the responsibility
placed by the Constitution upon the judiciary to insure that the Congress
does not unjustifiably encroach upon an individual's right to privacy nor
abridge his liberty of speech, press, religion or assembly.

Standard Charter Bank vs Senate Committee on Banks

Indeed, the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative
complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically
bar the conduct of legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely
easy to subvert any intended inquiry by Congress through the convenient
ploy of instituting a criminal or an administrative complaint. Surely, the
exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative

Political Law 1

inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal

or an administrative investigation.
Legislative Contempt
Arnault vs Nazareno
No person can be punished for contumacy as a witness before
either House unless his testimony is required in a matter into which that
House has jurisdiction to inquire.
Once an inquiry is admitted or established to be within the
jurisdiction of a legislative body to make, the investigating committee has the
power to require a witness to answer any question pertinent to the subject
of the inquiry, subject of the course to his constitutional privilege against
self-incrimination.
The materiality of a question that it may be propounded to a
witness is determined by its direct relation to the subject of the inquiry and
not by its indirect relation to any proposed or possible legislation.
AUTHORITY OF EITHER HOUSE OF CONGRESS TO COMMIT A WITNESS FOR
CONTEMPT BEYOND PERIOD OF LEGISLATIVE SESSION. There is no sound
reason to limit the power of the legislative body to punish for contempt to
the end of every session and not to the end of the last session terminating
the existence of that body. While the existence of the House of
Representatives is limited to four years, that of the Senate is not so limited.
The Senate is a continuing body which does not ceases to exist upon the
periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of Representatives.
There is no limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish for contempt in
cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted.
The Law Making Process
(Siguro naman alam mo na yan no! Refer to statcon book.)
The Bills that are required to originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives
A- Appropriation Bills
P- Private Bills
R- Revenue Bills
I- Increase in Public Debt
L- Local Bills
Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance
On the bills that must originate exclusively in the House of Representatives
Indeed, what the Constitution simply means is that the initiative
for filing revenue, tariff, or tax bills, bills authorizing an increase of the public
debt, private bills and bills of local application must come from the House of
Representatives on the theory that, elected as they are from the districts, the
members of the House can be expected to be more sensitive to the local
needs and problems. On the other hand, the senators, who are elected at
large, are expected to approach the same problems from the national
perspective. Both views are thereby made to bear on the enactment of such
laws.
To begin with, it is not the law but the revenue bill which is required by
the Constitution to "originate exclusively" in the House of Representatives. It
is important to emphasize this, because a bill originating in the House may
undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the result may be a
rewriting of the whole. The possibility of a third version by the conference
committee will be discussed later. At this point, what is important to note is
that, as a result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist
that a revenue statute and not only the bill which initiated the legislative
process culminating in the enactment of the law must substantially be the
same as the House bill would be to deny the Senate's power not only to
"concur with amendments" but also to " propose amendments." It would be
to violate the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress
and in fact make the House superior to the Senate.
On How to Pass a Bill
The presidential certification dispensed with the requirement not
only of printing but also that of reading the bill on separate days. The phrase
"except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate

Page 8

enactment, etc." in Art. VI, 26(2) qualified the two stated conditions before
a bill can become a law: (i) the bill has passed three readings on separate
days and (ii) it has been printed in its final form and distributed three days
before it is finally approved.
In other words, the "unless" clause must be read in relation to the "except"
clause, because the two are really coordinate clauses of the same sentence.
To construe the "except" clause as simply dispensing with the second
requirement in the "unless" clause (i.e., printing and distribution three days
before final approval) would not only violate the rules of grammar. It would
also negate the very premise of the "except" clause: the necessity of securing
the immediate enactment of a bill which is certified in order to meet a public
calamity or emergency. For if it is only the printing that is dispensed with by
presidential certification, the time saved would be so negligible as to be of
any use in insuring immediate enactment. It may well be doubted whether
doing away with the necessity of printing and distributing copies of the bill
three days before the third reading would insure speedy enactment of a law
in the face of an emergency requiring the calling of a special election for
President and Vice-President. Under the Constitution such a law is required
to be made within seven days of the convening of Congress in emergency
session.
That upon the certification of a bill by the President the
requirement of three readings on separate days and of printing and
distribution can be dispensed with is supported by the weight of legislative
practice.

One Subject One Title Rule

Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
De Guzman vs COMELEC
The objectives of Section 26(1), Article VI of the 1987
Constitution, that "[e]very bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof", are:
1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation;
2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the legislature by means of provisions in
bills of which the titles gave no information, and which might therefore be
overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and
3. To fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative
proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are being
considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon
by petition or otherwise if they shall so desire.
Section 26(1) of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution is sufficiently complied
with where, as in this case, the title is comprehensive enough to embrace the
general objective it seeks to achieve, and if all the parts of the statute are
related and germane to the subject matter embodied in the title or so long as
the same are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title.
Enrolled Bill Doctrine
Arroyo vs De Venecia
Under the enrolled bill doctrine, the signing of H. Bill No. 7189 by
the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate and the
certification by the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed
on November 21, 1996 are conclusive of its due enactment. x x x To be sure,
there is no claim either here or in the decision in the EVAT cases (Tolentino v.
Secretary of Finance) that the enrolled bill embodies a conclusive
presumption. In one case (Astorga v. Villegas, 56 SCRA 714 *1974+) we went
behind an enrolled bill and consulted the Journal to determine whether
certain provisions of a statute had been approved by the Senate.
But, whereas here there is no evidence to the contrary, this Court
will respect the certification of the presiding officers of both Houses that a
bill has been duly passed. Under this rule, this Court has refused to
determine claims that the three-fourths vote needed to pass a proposed
amendment to the Constitution had not been obtained, because a duly

Political Law 1

authenticated bill or resolution imports absolute verity and is binding on the

courts. x x x
The enrolled bill doctrine, as a rule of evidence, is well-established. It is cited
with approval by text writers here and abroad. The enrolled bill rule rests on
the following considerations:
X x x. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by
Congress, an enrolled Act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having
the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of
the President of the Senate, and of the President of the United States,
carries, on its face, a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive
departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of
enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect
due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial
department to act upon that assurance, and to accept, as having passed
Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated; leaving the court to
determine, when the question properly arises, whether the Act, so
authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution.
The Presidential Veto
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a
law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it;
otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the
House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its
Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds
of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent,
together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House,
it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be
determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or
against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his
veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the
date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in
an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item
or items to which he does not object.
Gonzales vs Macaraig
Paragraph (1) refers to the general veto power of the President
and if exercised would result in the veto of the entire bill, as a general rule.
Paragraph (2) is what is referred to as the item-veto power or the line-veto
power. It allows the exercise of the veto over a particular item or items in an
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill. As specified, the President may not veto
less than all of an item of an Appropriations Bill. In other words, the power
given the executive to disapprove any item or items in an Appropriations Bill
does not grant the authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the
remaining portion of the same item.
Doctrine of Inappropriate Provision
Gonzales vs Macaraig
Explicit is the requirement that a provision in the Appropriations
Bill should relate specifically to some " particular appropriation" therein. The
challenged "provisions" fall short of this requirement. Firstly, the vetoed
"provisions" do not relate to any particular or distinctive appropriation. They
apply generally to all items disapproved or reduced by Congress in the
Appropriations Bill. Secondly, the disapproved or reduced items are nowhere
to be found on the face of the Bill. Consequently, Section 55 (FY '89) and
Section 16 (FY '90) although labelled as "provisions," are actually
inappropriate provisions that should be treated as items for the purpose of
the President's veto power.
An item in a bill refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and
severable parts of the bill. It is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a
stated purpose The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Bengzon v.
Secretary of Justice declared "that an 'item' of an appropriation bill obviously
means an item which in itself is a specific appropriation of money, not some
general provision of law, which happens to be put into an appropriation bill.
PHILCONSA vs Enriquez

Page 9

As the Constitution is explicit that the provision which Congress

can include in an appropriations bill must "relate specifically to some
particular appropriation therein" and "be limited in its operation to the
appropriation to which it relates," it follows that any provision which does
not relate to any particular item, or which extends in its operation beyond an
item of appropriation, is considered "an inappropriate provision" which can
be vetoed separately from an item. Also to be included in the category of
"inappropriate provisions" are unconstitutional provisions and provisions
which are intended to amend other laws, because clearly these kind of laws
have no place in an appropriations bill.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
The Faithful Execution Clause
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
The Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
All executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the
Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are
assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and except in cases where the
Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or 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, and the acts of the secretaries of
such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.

Section 15, Article VII has a broader scope than the Aytona
ruling. It may not unreasonably be deemed to contemplate not only
midnight appointments those made obviously for partisan reasons as
shown by their number and the time of their making but also appointments
presumed made for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the
Presidential election.
Manalo vs Sistoza
Unconstitutional are Sections 26 and 31 of Republic Act 6975
(DILG ACT) which empower the Commission on Appointments to confirm the
appointments of public officials whose appointments are not required by the
Constitution to be confirmedxxx
The police force is different from and independent of the armed
forces and the ranks in the military are not similar to those in the Philippine
National Police. Thus, directors and chief superintendents of the PNP x x x
do not fall under the first category of presidential appointees requiring
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
The Military Powers of the President
(1) Calling out power as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP
(2) Martial Law Power
(3) Suspension of the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus
IBP vs Zamora
It is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to vest upon the
President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, full discretion to call
forth the military when in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.

The Powers of the President

The appointing power
Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of
the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers
whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also
appoint all other officers of the Government whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law, and those whom he may be authorized by law
to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers
lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess
of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments
shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments
or until the next adjournment of the Congress.
Limitations on the Appointing power of the President
(1)The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil
degree of the President shall not during his tenure be appointed as members
of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as
Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices,
including government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.
(2) Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to
the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety.
Valenzuela vs Vallarta
Section 15, Article VII is directed against two types of
appointments: (1) those made for buying votes and (2) those made for
partisan considerations. The first refers to those appointments made within
two months preceding the Presidential election and are similar to those
which are declared election offenses in the Omnibus Election Code; while the
second consists of the so-called midnight appointments. The SC in clarified
this when it held:

Political Law 1

The intent to grant the President the widest leeway and broadest
discretion in using the power to call out because it is considered as the lesser
and more benign power compared to the power to suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law, both of
which involve the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil rights and
individual freedoms, and thus necessitating safeguards by Congress and
review by this Court.
Moreover, under Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, in the
exercise of the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or to impose martial law, two conditions must concur: (1) there must be an
actual invasion or rebellion and, (2) public safety must require it. These
conditions are not required in the case of the power to call out the armed
forces. The only criterion is that "whenever it becomes necessary," the
President may call the armed forces "to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion." The implication is that the President is given full
discretion and wide latitude in the exercise of the power to call as compared
to the two other powersx x x
On the other hand, the President as Commander-in-Chief has a
vast intelligence network to gather information, some of which may be
classified as highly confidential or affecting the security of the state. In the
exercise of the power to call, on-the-spot decisions may be imperatively
necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives and
mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the military to
prevent or suppress lawless violence must be done swiftly and decisively if it
were to have any effect at all. Such a scenario is not farfetched when we
consider the present situation in Mindanao, where the insurgency problem
could spill over the other parts of the countryx x x
Pardoning Power of the President
SECTION 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in
this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations and
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
majority of all the Members of the Congress.
(1) Reprieve
(2) Commutations
(3) Pardon

Page 10

(4) Amnesty

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Monsanto vs Factoran
While a pardon has generally been regarded as blotting out the
existence of guilt so that in the eyes of the law the offender is as innocent as
though he never committed the offense, it does not operate for all purposes.
The very essence of a pardon is forgiveness or remission of guilt and not
forgetfulness. It does not erase the fact of the commission of the crime and
the conviction thereof. Pardon frees the individual from all the penalties and
legal disabilities and restores to him all his civil rights. Unless expressly
grounded on the person's innocence, it cannot bring back lost reputation for
honesty, integrity and fair dealing. The pardoned offender regains his
eligibility for appointment to public office which was forfeited by reason of
the conviction of the offense. But since pardon does not generally result in
automatic reinstatement because the offender has to apply for
reappointment, he is not entitled to back wages. But, stated otherwise, if the
pardon is based on the innocence of the individual, it affirms this innocence
and makes him a new man and as innocent as if he had not been found guilty
of the offense charged. When a person is given pardon because he did not
truly commit the offense, the pardon relieves the party from all punitive
consequences of his criminal act, thereby restoring to him his clean name,
good reputation and unstained character prior to the finding of guilt.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable,
and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.

Kapunan vs CA
We are in accord with the findings of the Investigating Panel that
in this particular case, the grant of amnesty to the respondents concerned,
does not extinguish their criminal liability for the Olalia-Alay-ay killings. There
is no showing that this case was one of those crimes for which amnesty was
applied for and subsequently granted. Logic and reason dictate that amnesty
for a particular offense could not have been granted when it was not even
applied for. Besides, Proclamation No. 348 (granting amnesty to certain
AFP/PNP personnel who may have committed certain acts defined herein)
dated March 25, 1994, as amended by Proclamation No. 348 dated May 10,
1994, provides that for amnesty to be granted, the acts or omissions for
which it is sought do not constitute serious human rights violations, such as
acts of torture, extra-legal execution, arson, massacre, rape, other crimes
against chastity, or robbery of any form (underscoring supplied). Evidently,
the Olalia-Alay-ay murder partakes of the nature of extra-legal execution and
could not have come within the ambit of the law.
Treaty Making Power
Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
Sec. 25, Art. 18
Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the
Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning
military bases, foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed
in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and,
when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the
people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a
treaty by the other contracting State.
Bayan vs Zamora
The power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as
commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only
to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.
SC: The Phil. Govt. has complied with the Constitution in that the VFA was
concurred in by the Phil. Senate, thus complying with Sec. 21, Art. VII. The
Republic of the Philippines cannot require the US to submit the agreement to
the US Senate for concurrence, for that would be giving a strict construction
to the phrase, recognized as a treaty. Moreover, it is inconsequential
whether the US treats the VFA as merely an executive agreement because
under international law, an executive agreement is just as binding as a treaty.
Other Powers of the President not in Art VII
(1) Veto power of the President
(2) General Supervision of LGUs
(3) Call Congress on special sessions

Political Law 1

Parts of Judicial Power

(1) Duty to settle actual controversies- traditional concept of judicial power
(2) Determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion- expanded
power of judicial review
-extraordinary powers of the Court
-political question doctrine was deemed somehow inoperative
Political Question Doctrine
-questions of policy that inquiries as to the wisdom or efficacy of an act
-as a rule, political questions should not be intruded by the Court
-sprung from the doctrine of separation of powers
Tanada vs Cuenco
Political questions refer "to those questions which, under the
Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or
in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the
legislative or executive branch of government."
When the grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations,
the issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been
met or the limitations respected, is justiciable - the problem being one of
legality or validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit
constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. When political
questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination as to
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being
questioned.
By grave abuse of discretion is meant simply capricious or whimsical exercise
of judgment that is patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive
duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. Under this definition, a
court is without power to directly decide matters over which full
discretionary authority has been delegated. But while this Court has no
power to substitute its judgment for that of Congress or of the President, it
may look into the question of whether such exercise has been made in grave
abuse of discretion.
Estrada vs Desierto
EDSA 1
Involves the people power of
revolution which overthrows the
whole government

Extra-constitutional
The legitimacy of the new
government that resulted from it
cannot be subject to judicial review

Political Question

EDSA 2
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
Intra-constitutional
The resignation of the sitting
President that it caused and the
succession of the Vice President as
President are subject to judicial
review
Legal Question

IBP vs Zamora
The determination of the necessity for the calling out power if
subjected to unfettered judicial scrutiny could be a veritable prescription for
disaster, as such power may be unduly straitjacketed by an injunction or a
temporary restraining order every time it is exercised.
Thus, it is the unclouded intent of the Constitution to vest upon
the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, full discretion to
call forth the military when in his judgment it is necessary to do so in order to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. Unless the
petitioner can show that the exercise of such discretion was gravely abused,

Page 11

the Presidents exercise of judgment deserves to be accorded respect from

this Court.
Unless, petitioner IBP can show, which it has not, that in the
deployment of the Marines, the President has violated the fundamental law,
exceeded his authority or jeopardized the civil liberties of the people, this
Court is not inclined to overrule the Presidents determination of the factual
basis for the calling of the Marines to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
David vs GMA
-GMA declared a state of emergency
-Declaration of national state of emergency is only a delegated power by the
Congress to the President
-What GMA exercised was not;
a. State of Emergency because there was no law authorizing it
b. Martial Law because no grounds existed that validates the
declaration of martial law
-What GMA exercised was her calling out power
-SolGen said that there was an on-going conspiracy to destabilize the present
government that justifies GMAs declaration of state of national emergency
-Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof and to rebut the factual
evidence presented by the Solicitor General
- SC sustained proclamation 1017
-However, the SC declared the following acts done in pursuant to the
declaration as ultra vires acts;
a. Curtailment of the freedom of the media
b. Threats to hold public utilities
c. Warrantless arrests
d. Prohibition against rallies and mass demonstrations
Villuya vs Zamora
-Comfort women wanted to the President to espouse their claim against the
Japanese Government
-They wanted the Japanese Government to apologize and pay damages to
them.
-President refused to bring their claims because of the agreement between
Japan and the Philippines
-If the President refuses, the Court could do nothing anymore because it is
now a political question
-The Court could only urge the President to espouse their claims but the
Court cannot compel him.

Political Law 1

Page 12