Constitutional Law 2

Outline
Atty. Muyot

Principles and State Policies

PHAP v. Duque, G.R. 173034, Oct. 9, 2007
Republic of Indonesia v. Vinson, G.R. 154705, June 26, 2003
Minucher v. CA, G.R. 142396, Feb. 11, 2003
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R.101083, July 30, 1993
Inherent Powers of the State
Police Power (when is it reasonable? There should be due process)
Edu v. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481 (1970)
Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators v. City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849 (1967)
Phil. Assn. of Service Exporters v. Torres, 212 SCRA 298 (1992)
JMM Promotion v. CA, 260 SCRA 319 (1996)
Chavez v. Romulo, G.R. 157036, June 29, 2004
National Development Corp. v. Phil. Veterans Bank, 192 SCRA 257 (1990)
MMDA v. Garin, G.R. 130230, April 15, 2005
Eminent Domain
Association of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989)
Reyes v. NHA, 395 SCRA 494 (2003)
City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, 350 SCRA 487 (2001)
Lagcao v. Labra, 440 SCRA 279 (2004)
Taxation
Sison v. Ancheta, 130 SCRA 654 (1984)
Reyes v. Almanzor, 196 SCRA 322 (1991)
Comm. of Internal Revenue v. Solidbank, 416 SCRA 436 (2003)
Lung Center v. Quezon City, 433 SCRA 119 (2004)
National Power Corp. v. City of Cabanatuan, 401 SCRA 259 (2003)
Bill of Rights
Due Process (procedural and substantive; former involves that the accused is given the time to be heard;
latter involves standards)
Rubi v. Prov. Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil. 660 (1919); discussion on the history and what are the standards of
due process; balancing of the individual vis--vis the larger interest of society (public interest).
Ynot v. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987); whats provided for in the law is unreasonable; objective is not fully
established; prohibition doesnt meet the objective.
Corona v. United Harbors Pilots Association, 283 SCRA 31 (1997); even ones profession can be considered as
a property, not a license which can be revoked (also a privilege can be revoked), profession can also be
considered as a vested right; they cannot be deprived of profession by means of licensing them every year;
unlike in driving, theres a regulation; but in the case at hand, they are already qualified pilots.
Procedural due process- whether or not substantive due process has been followed; may be provided for by
rules and regulations, or notice, hearings.

Notice- the law begins whether or not people are aware of the law. In Taada v. Tuvera (Part II), they cannot
determine where to publish said laws in relation to Part I decision since the Official Gazette is always delayed.
Notice and Hearing- have proceedings (criminal, civil, administrative); these are governed by rules; whatever
procedure that has been provided should be followed; sometimes we have to look at the rules to know if both
notice and hearing are present.
(some sort of examples?)
1. You must know what you are charged with
2. Right to be heard by himself and counsel
3. Waiver of his right
4. Right to be informed of his right (Miranda doctrine)
5. Rights of the accused
Judges should include the facts, defense by both parties, the law (what provision has been violated), then the
judge will decide. If the accused is found guilty, he has the right to appeal.
Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986)
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433 (1982); questioned the procedural hearing; if what you are questioning
is what happened, then it is tantamount to a grave or excess; in which case was the first filed, safeguards were
alredy built in the SB (Sandiganbayan) there are already 3 judges to review cases initially filed; public trust
would be lost in the judiciary if theyd let graft and corruption be held in an unspeedy trial; CA screens out the
emotions and biases of the lower courts
Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (1940); the Court lay downs the administrative chenes;Hearing- the right to
be heard; submission of position papers, as long as youre given the chance to air your side; evidence presented
must be substantial; administrative agencies should have jurisdiction. But can it actually give a relief?
Guilt beyond reasonable doubt: morally certain; no doubt (Criminal cases)
Preponderance of evidence: which one is weightier (Civil cases)
Substantial evidence: is the conclusion supported by evidence (as long as there as basis on the evidence
gathered) (Administrative cases)
Pollution Adjudication Board v. CA, 119 SCRA 112 (1991); there is an exception to due process: when there is a
threat to life (public health, safety, and welfare or persons, even animals)
Ex: TROs (20 days) and Protection Orders (50 days); but both involves preliminary injunction
Non v. Dames, 185 SCRA 523 (1990); Others may include proceedings in a private school. PSBA
doctrine/ruling- they had to overcome this. Look for provisions in the school manual [par.1]; the school
claimed that they were denied due to academic deficiency; expelled because of a disciplinary proceeding;
students still have their rights even when they are inside their schools (ex: right to speech and assembly)
Equal Protection (if a law violates equal protection, it also violates substantive due process; equal
protection is the twin of due process; there might still be discrimination though, what is prohibited is
UNREASONABLE DESCRIPTION; classification and purpose of the law)
Distinguish equality from non-discrimination: In international law, it has a very specific meaning, which
includes age, sex, gender, political belief (non-discrimination); different from the equality in our
constitutional law.
Who should lay the distinctions in the classification (ex. Equal protection)? Its purely legislative in nature
2

Who decides who belong to which classes? Congress still.

But can this be challenged by the courts? Yes, when it is unreasonable.
Test of reasonableness: purpose on the objective. It should be unwhimsical and uncapricious (is the
classification one that flows with the purpose and objective of the law); the courts wnatg confirmation, so it
would even require them to look at the journals of the House to see the intent.
Central Bank Employees Association v. BSP, G.R. 148208, Dec. 15, 2004; EP = everyone of the same class
should be treated equally; distinctions of classes must be reasonable;
Rational-basis test= traditional test being used; foundation: law is constitutional, wisdom of the law
should it be overturned by the courts; what is historically possible. Used in the Phils.
Strict Scrutiny- when there is a possible infringement of constnl rights. This should have been the test
used in the Ichong case (when there is an infringement of constitutional rights; bring into play suspect
classification and not the Bill of Rights) but race, gender, ethnicity- you singled them out.
Intermediate test- see Central Bank Employees Association v. BSP
Relative constitutionality- enacted statute was constitutional; but later on becomes unconstitutional in its
application due to circumstances
Phil. Judges Association v. Pardo, 227 SCRA 703(1993)
Ichong v. Hernandez, 101 Phil. 1155 (1957); RA 1180 Act to regulate the retail trade business; anti-chinese
according to the petitioners; nationality/race issue; this case is concern wid the former, if its the latter, it would
be unconstitutional; aliens exercising business in the Phils is a mere privilege.
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974); the reverse of suspect classification; they
were prevented from exercising their religion when they join the union; Right to Religion is preferred over
Equal Protection
Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)
Tatad v. Secretary of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 (1997); Oil deregulation Act- petitioner says it violates equal
protection; can a law on its face appear neutral, violate the equal protection clause? In this case, new players
are treated the same way as old players in retailing; what may be neutral may turned out to be discriminatory;
SC struck down the whole law because the provisions were so intertwined that they didnt mind the
circumstances attendant to it; No distinction was made in this law, and the problem is the whole law.
See also: US Constitutional issuances (reg. EQUAL PROTECTION)
Search and Seizure (place, crime, thing. Searches at night= extraordinary cases; witness should be a
lawful occupant of the place (ex: resident, tanod) and NOT the newspaperboy; what is seized cannot be
simply made an evidence, they (defense) can still contest its admissibility; Moncado ruling:
inadmissibility was not yet an issue, you just sue the police who made the illegal seizure, this ruling was
abandoned for practicality; Drugs and Illegal Firearms: Warrant is very important)
Rule 126, Rules of Court
3

Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)

Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800 (1984)
People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998)
Valmonte v. De Villa, 173 SCRA 211 (1989)
Aniag v. Comelec, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
Caballes v. CA, 373 SCRA 540 (2002)
Privacy of Communication
Ganaan v.CA, 145 SCRA 112 (1986)
Ramirez v. CA 248 SCRA 590 (1995)
Right to Privacy
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141 (1998)
Ayer Productions v. Capulong, 160 SCRA 861 (1988)
Freedom of Speech
New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Social Weather Station v. Comelec, 357 SCRA 496 (2001)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 578 (1942)
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 14 (1973)
Pita v. CA, 178 SCRA 362 (1989)
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Freedom of the Press
In re Emil Jurado, 243 SCRA 299 (1995)
Freedom of Assembly
Reyes v. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553 (1983)
Malabanan v. Ramento, 129 SCRA 359 (1984)
Bayan v. Ermita, G.R. No. 169848, April 25, 2006
Freedom of Religion
Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools, 219 SCRA 256 (1993)
Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003)
Islamic Dawah Council of the Philippines v. Office of the Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003
Aglipay v. Ruiz, 64 Phils. 201 (1937)
Heightened Scrutiny: Let the government be the one to justify on why to penalize a person who is invoking his
freedom of religion; Government will justify state interest; double check belief-action dichotomy whenever
someone invokes his FR, even if there is a penal provision, the State has to justify why it should not apply that
penal provision in that case; there must be a compelling state interest; someone who should and legally file the
case; the burden is in the state in compelling state interest.
Annulment cases- can be compelled from the courts, but not from the church.
Liberty of Abode; Right to Travel
Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil. 778 (1919)
Silverio v. CA, 195 SCRA 760 (1991)
4

Marcos v. Manglapus, 177 SCRA 668 (1989); Can then Pres. Aquino prevent the return of Marcos? The right
to travel and the right to return is different; under the International law, the right to return to ones country
(see Art. 12 of this law); minority: If liberty to return can be treated as a different right; majority: if the
president has the power; Nothing in the constitution about the right to return it can be found only in the
international law which was ratified by Mrs. Aquino
Philippine Association of Service Exporters v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 (1988); overseas workers, and those who
were going to Japan, a ban was approved for the protection of migrant workers. Is the ban constitutional? Yes.
Because it is for the protection and safety of those women going to those countries; right to travel can be
regulated; besides it is only a temporary ban
How would you know if its a violation of a right? When its covered by the mandate of POEA (liberty to travel)
-a child travelling without both her parents has to have a permit from DSWD
Curfew of minors- if there is a corresponding penalty, that would be unconstitutional; for it should be for their
protection, make them attend a seminar with their parents instead.
Right to Information
Legaspi v.Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530 (1987)
Valmonte v.Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 (1989)
Chavez v. PCGG, 299 SCRA 744 (1998)
Freedom of Association (any group is protected even if not registered)
Gonzales v. Comelec, 27 SCRA 835 (1969); the link of the voter to the person he voted must still exist; this
ones good, although it is unconstitutional (the 2nd prohibition) because it refers to an infringement of the
freedom of speech (expression)
In re Edillon, 84 SCRA 554 (1978); Can anyone be compelled to join a group? Courts distinction: Formal
association- ex. Paying of dues. Performance of an official member
SSS Employees Association v. CA, 175 SCRA 686 (1989)
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)
Non-impairment of Contracts
Oposa v. Factoran, G.R.101083, July 30, 1993;
Ortigas & Co. v. CA, 346 SCRA 748 (2000)
Access to Courts
Acar v. Rosal, G.R. No. L-21707, March 18, 1967
Custodial Investigation
People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 544 (1999)
People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 131036, June 20, 2001
Right to Bail
People v. Donato, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
Padaranga v. CA, 247 SCRA 741 (1995)
Rights of the Accused
5

People v. Calma, 295 SCRA 629 (1998)

People v. Flores, 394 SCRA 325 (2002)
People v. Murillo, 434 SCRA 342 (2004)
People v. Rivera, 362 SCRA 153 (2001)
In re: Request for Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Case Against Former Pres. Joseph
Estrada, 360 SCRA 248 (2001)
Writs of Habeas Corpus and Amparo
Ilusorio v. Bildner, 322 SCRA 169 (2000)
In re: the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 158802, Nov. 7, 2004
Supreme Court, Annotation to the Writ of Amparo (2007)
Speedy Disposition of Cases (for due process; so as not to stress the parties)
Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 146368, Oct. 18, 2004
Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan, 307 SCRA 149 (1999)
Right Against Self-incrimination (only on a question to question basis; after the question has been asked;
but if its the accused who admitted the crime or testified about it, this remedy is not available anymore)
People v. Ayson, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
Chavez v. CA, 24 SCRA 663 (1968); id; id; right not be a witness against oneself; u can invoke this BEFORE
you are even subject to questioning
Villaflor v. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 (1920); only testimonial evidence is covered by this right
Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil. 570 (1929)
Why do you protect the accused? Because that one accused is going against the State; and that is to ensure that
there will be no abuse of the state power.
Non-imprisonment for Beliefs; Involuntary Servitude
Caunca v. Salazar, 82 Phil. 851 (1940); the fact that she was detained by the employer is against her right to
liberty, the only 3 reasons this is allowed is when 1. A crime has been committed, 2. Person is insane, 3.
Communicable disease.
Excessive Fines and Cruel and Inhuman Punishment
Atkins v. U.S., 536 U.S. 304 (2002); state legislation (in the states)none; reg. death penalty for the mentally
retarded; later on, the SC decided that this is cruel and inhuman (this has to do with the FORM of punishment
and the mental state of the accused); there was an irreversible trend that would outlaw mentally retarded persons
from being persecuted of death (state legislature); because everyone knew that is morally wrong, thats why
they searched for reasons; the impact of this case EXPANDED the meaning of cruel and inhuman to even a case
to case situation; the particular condition of the accused is put into consideration;
Lim v. People, 390 SCRA 194 (2002)
Non-imprisonment for non-payment of debt or poll tax
Lozano v. Martinez, 146 SCRA 323 (1986); cannot be because this is a CIVIL obligation and not criminal
liability; one of the partys check here bounced; the non-payment of debt is not the act being persecuted, rather
its because BP 22 was violated; its NOT failing to pay; CIVIL is different from CRIMINAL; BP 22 is malum
prohibitum that was enacted pursuant to police power; SC issued a circular to judges of a fine instead of the
penalty (double that of the amount of the bounced checks); the court is showing that there is no imprisonment
6

from none payment of debt and that there is no double jeopardy; to protect the dignity and integrity (and
authenticity) of the checks by ensuring its negotiability (Passed it or exchange it on for value); people have to
have faith in documents; petitioner alleges that he can be charged w/ BP22 and estafa w/c would constitute
double jeopardy; it cannot be covered coz it is covered by the RPC and the other same act
BP 22 was enacted to convict the accused if the check bounced, although he is not liable for estafa
Promissory notes-civil in character
Double Jeopardy (same offense [is it the same law] or the same act [same element, for each crime or
offense; whether or not the material elements are the same]; you also have to look at the issue of
harassment; not the same as the concept of DJ in the US for the Phil. Consti provides more protection
[see 2nd clause];
People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987); no criminal liability, there is double jeopardy; because the intent to
gain in the ordinance is implied; athough they are covered by diff. laws, but if the elements are practically the
same, there is double jeopardy
People v. De la Torres, 380 SCRA 596 (2002); the accused did not file for an appeal, but the prosecution did
which they dont have the right to, to increase the accuseds penalty; they also file the same facts of the offense;
a classic case of doubl jeopardy;
Another ex: driving w/o a license, then you hit someone, you were charged wid reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide and driving w/o license, is thered DJ? YES
;if alleged in the info to increase the penalty, then filed a separate case involving that same separate crime, it
would give rise to double jeopardy.
See also Galman vs Aquino, lamera vs CA
Ex Post Facto Law Bill of Attainder (are they the same? The BOA can be under the concept of EPFL;
In re: Kay Villegas Kami, 35 SCRA 429 (1970); petitioners contested that them being a member already barred
them from running
People v. Ferrer, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
Academic Freedom (who can teach and who can study; one of the most important rights; 4 rights that
embodies academic freedom; 1.Who may teach, 2.What should be taught, 3.How to be taught, 4.Who
may be admitted; does an individual student has an academic freedom? Yes, to study and to continue their
studies. That is, after you have been admitted, you cannot be dismissed unless there is a valid cause (as found in
existing and established rules); anything that involves the student invoves the fourth one; it is the most broadest
component;
Miriam College v. CA, 348 SCRA 265 (2000); 4th one; grossly immoral publications, depends upon the nature
of the institution; put into context the value of that particular school; expulsion is not proportionate to their
offense; suspension is the right penalty; understand this mabuti daw.
Morales v. U.P. Board of Regents, 446 SCRA 227 (2004);4th concept ; Morales wanted to shift her minor; there was
due process, there was a vote and she lost; the court explained why they would not intervene with the issues
concerning grave abuse of jurisdiction, because if they did, it would open the doors to all kinds of suits that
got a grade below than what they expect.
7

Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, 68 SCRA 277 (1976); SC explained what academic freedom is; she wants
to be a student as MA in Theo; she wants to be a regular student; 1. According to the teachers, she was only
pestering the class by asking difficult questions, that hinders the progress of the class, 2. Seminarians are males,
which cannot be questioned; she should have enrolled in a different institution,, and not compel the Loyola to
accept her; just because an institution does not accept an individual, it is not a violation of the academic
freedom per se; since what was earlier considered was the opposite;
De La Salle University v. CA, G.R. No. 127980, Dec. 19, 2007; 4th one; no serious injuries that would merit the
expulsin, you have to weigh the act done in relation to the penalty; though the school have the right to
sanction; freedom of the school and not the student like the Miriam case; due process was observed in this case.
Excluded and Expulsion: In the former, the school will not accept you anymore but they will make a
recommendation letter, so you could enroll in another school,while in expulsin, you are not entitled to enrol in
any SCHOOL
In our constitutional history, AF is for the institutions; w/ regard to how it will be taught, researchers and
teachers are recognized; how-3 discussions are encouraged but there are some limits, but one has to consider the
values of the school; can you have religion vis-a-vis academic freedom? Former is protected especially even
under AF.
The test (reg. Subsidies): if its something that will benefit the students, it will be allowed, but if its for the
benefit of the latter, it would be unconstitutional
Recently, an ordinance in the QC was passed that would compel the schools to teach natural and artificial
family planning (reproductive health). Can the school be compeled and what right would be weightier?
1.may the school be compeled to teach? Catholic school cannot be compeled;
What if the teacher invokes AC? For the right of the teacher to teach, is also under AFLoyola case has a
religious undertonesacademic freedom of the insti, and because its a catholic school, it can also invoke RF.
And when AF is topped by the RF, it would be weightier when both of them invoked AF.
Its always different in a catholic school. EX: a parent wrote the school saying that they cannot compel their son
to take up their subject. The school would prevail.
How about in lawschools? Not anyone, the issue is how should it be taught and how the students should be
graded.
Commission on Human Rights (was made to make sure that the Philippines comply with its international
obligations; The UN charter, the universal declaration of human rights (a customary international public
law; a soft law), the international covenant on socio-eco rights, women, refugee, torture, etc. and other
conventions (hard laws), to be the independent monitoring body to make sure that the Philippines
comply; its not just national but also international; the Philippines was one if the first to do so.
CHR- monitoring
- Investigation civil and political
- Education
- Visitorial function
- Policy- which includes making recommendations
Carino v. CHR, 204 SCRA 483 (1991);
Simon v. CHR, 229 SCRA 117 (1994)
8

Civil Liability for Violation of Rights; in violation thereof, there are corresponding sanctions. Others may
be held criminally liable, but there are remedies available under the civil code; for the award of damages
under art. 32. The NCC was enacted in the 1950s so it used the 1935 Consti Bill of rights. Nonetheless,
the SC wasnt deterred in applying the remedies.
Lim v. Ponce de Leon, 66 SCRA 299 (1975); Who can be held liable for damages for the violation of the right?
The object of this case was the boat that was seized which is purpotedly the corpus delicti of a crime. Only the
OWNER can invoke his right, not the seller, not anyone else. Who is liable? Not the one who did the seizure
since he was justified when he followed the order which was lawful on its face. It should be the prosecutor who
violated and should be liable since he is the one who ordered the seizure.
Aberca v. Ver, 160 SCRA 299 (1988); How far can the liability of the superior officer be sued? Violation was a
search without warrant by alleged members of the communist party. Can this case be filed even if the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended? Yes. You can only not file for the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Art. 32 is
one of the independent civil actions. Who can be liable? Plaintiffs used respondia superior (good father of a
family), which is not embraced by the civil code (Art. 2180). But the SC said look closely at Art. 32, (directly
or indirectly), so all of those persons up the chain of command is liable. The Sec. Of defense even, after he
has retired, him being the 2nd in command of the Commander of Chief. Anyway, the chief of staff was the one
who created the task forc. (public officials)
MHP Garments v. CA, 236 SCRA 227 (1994); who else can be liable? Again, things were searched w/o a search
warrant, alleging that the uniforms of the boyscouts and girlscouts uniform were fake. However, they were not
fake, but they were not authorized. So the case was dismissed. So who should be responsable? The policemen
who seized and confiscated the stores or the juridical person? Can the latter be sued (a prvate (natural) and
juridical person)? Yes. Although you cann sue the policeman, they dont have the capacity to pay.
When you file a case for damages, make sure you file it with the one who can pay.
Cardinal rule in damages: you want to get paid/indemnified.
Citizenship (1st: find out who are the citizens of the Philippines. 1. Those citz who were citz of the Phils
when the 87 consti was made. 2. Father OR mother are citizens. 3. Those who elected to be Filipino
citizen upon the age of majority. 4. Naturalized. The issue nowadays is whether you are natural-born or
naturalized. It is important because some public positions require that one is natural born. One has to
determine which comes first (naturalized and natural born).
Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. 161634, March 3, 2004; petitioners wanted to disqualify him because he is not
even a Filipino, him being an American following the citizen of his mother since hes illegitimate. SC said they
would not inquire whether hes an American under the American law, rather they put the burden on the
petitioners to prove that he should be disqualified. The question here: Have the petitioners established that he is
not a natural born Filipino? They failed to present enough evidence and documents. 1. Birth Certificate: that
he was born in Pangasinan. That he is a Filipino. The father is a Filipino under jus soli even if his grandpa is
Spanish. Yet his father was born in the Philippines. 2. Marriage Cert of FPJ Sr. and Lolita Gomez. Their
theory was that since he is an illegitimate child, it follows that he would follow the citizen of his mother, an
American (under the 1935 constitution) 3. Certification on the national archives that there exists no doc.
(#2). And that # 2 could be fake since there were no records. How could they possibly get a photocopy when
theres no photocopy machine yet. Since the petitioners wasnt able to prove otherwise, the presumption that he
is a Fil. Citz (natural born) still stands. This is one of the cases where the SC educates again

Natural born: jus sanguinis and the 87 consti (including the 73 consti); now, it doesnt matter whether your
legitimate or illegitimate, as long as one of your parents a Filipino, its okay. Even if jus soli (US), no matter,
because one of his parents is a filipino
Pag dual-citz: simply renounce your US citz, then you can take up public office. Frivaldo and Salonga needed to
be naturalized again since the concept of dual citz is not yet prevaliling.
Owning properties: ok; even in the 73 consti theres an exeption, but only to a limited hectares. Under 87 consti,
dual citz ok.
First thing to ask: when the person was born. To determine what consti is he/she under
Citizenship is a matter of law and not of lineage.
Republic v. Lim, G.R. No. 153883, Jan. 13, 2004; she wants her BC corrected. Not just administratively, but
also substantial (from illegitimate to legitimate, aside from her last name)
Frivaldo v. Comelec, 257 SCRA 727 (1996); Was Frivaldo repatriated or was he naturalized? The latter. He had
lost his citz, he never finishes his three year term. This is different from Bengzon, because after he renounced
his US citz, he became stateless. The naturalization took effect when he took his oath as of June 30. Kaso,
naunahan siya ni Lee by mere time. SC was faced with the problem as to who should be the governor? Why
wasnt he still abled to get the seat? When the law provides for disqualifications for those who will run for
office (dissenting by Justice Davide, further stating that it should be the rule of law and not of men), but
according to the majority, These are qualifications who can serve. Lees oath was declared null and void.
Because the citizenship of Frivaldo retroacted on the day he filed his petition. Yet SC said, they shouldnt stick
to legalism, rather the peoples choice should prevail (since the vote was won by a landslide).
On what day should they possess the qualifications? On the day your term starts.
Elective: should be on the very day of the election
Elected: after one has won
Bengzon v. HRET, 357 SCRA 545 (2001); Bengzon wanted to be a congressman. However Cruz won. So the
former attacked the citizenship of the latter. Cruz was naturalized not natural born. Cruz enlisted in the US
marines. Accdg. To the commonwealth law, he lost his citz. When he owed allegiance to the US (this is a special
law; for once they renounced this, they can revert back to their old citz). A few years after, he naturalized
himself as a US citz and took his oath. That is different from the former. Both acts constitute the total lost of his
Filipino citz. Then he retired as a marine, returned to the Philippines. However there was a problem reg. his citz
(he ran for mayor the 1st time), then as a congressman. That is why Bengzon is questioning his citz. When one
of the requirements involves being a NATURAL-born citz. It is not enough that he took his oath as a mayor
under the Local Civil Registrar. IMPORTANTLY FACT though: he renounced his US CITZ by executing the
affidavit in the US Emabssy and it was accepted, and there was a certification from the latter. That is why
according to the court, he is now a Filipino citz. Then Bengzon attested that he is only naturalized. But
according to the court, there is a special law (repatriation: you were reinstated to your former citz prior to your
acquisition of that citz)
Mrs. Salonga went to court to reclaim her Fil Citz after the Marcos regime
Suffrage
Akbayan v. Comelec, G.R. No. 147066, 03-06-01; almost 4 mil people were unable to register. COMELEC
explained the long and tedious process; for one there are the forms; 2 weeks to print them, then longer to
10

distribute them. Petitions for inclusin, if they push back for special registration dates, it would be imposible to
determine who are included and excluded; and the Comelec wants to prevent flying voters; as long as the
COMELEC has a valid reason not to give in to the request, then there is no grave abuse of discretion, w/c they
have legally and factually. STAND BY powers of the COMELEC are discretionary; COMELEC has quasijudicial and legislative powers w/c the court cannot interfere with. And according to the CONSTITUTION,
suffrage may be exercised even if one cannot read or write, because they want to provide for universal suffrage
for representation w/c is the essence of a democratic and republican govt. What Pardo is trying to imply is
that COMELEC is the one who should decide who should vote. If the COMELEC will not allow this special
chorva (huh??) brought about by poor management, the effect would be a deprivation of ones right to suffrage.
Pardo knows that they can do this because he was once a commissioner. And they can also this legally since
there is no express repeal. It can actually be done but the COMELEC just doesnt want to do it. Under rule 65, it
will not apply though.
-it is the right of the people that is more important than that of the candidate. Its easy to disenfranchise people.
Suffrage is the first expression of sovereignty of the people. And the right to rebel is implied when they are not
satisfied with the government. And the most effective would be changing the people in the govt. If suffrage is
not effective, they can revolt. Its a rule of law thats why there can be succession (ex: by the vice pres when the
president died, became disabled, etc).
SC is so concerned with the erosion of the spirit of the republican democratic state (Chavez vs Gonzales); ex:
suffrage has been affected due to this intrusion.

CLOSING REMARKS NI ATTY MUYOT.

A democratic republican government is not good if a senator has been in term for 40 yrs; however, their counter
argument is that they have a good president; but a good president that stayed too long is not good; people would
depend most of the time on him (ex: singapore). (This was in referrence to his discussion [republican
democratic] reg. The system of government in the States and other Asian countries)
Fixed terms: good because there is change; but nepotism happens. (setting in the Philippines as compared to
above)
The key to a well informed and a very deliberate electorate: only check now in the constitution; there should be
a corresponding requirement; he (young public officer) should be mature in judgment but he is also should be
mature in change; and these young people should be given an opportunity to take part in this change
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW is concern wid the issue of power;
In a criminal case, the power of the State is so overwhelming that is why the Constitution upheld the rights of
the accused; and put up stringent requirements. Its not because it favors the accused, rather its in recognition of
the imbalance of power. However the practice has not been consistent with the present. Its our duty to ensure
that the protection given by our Constitution is observed even to the person we hated most. And its for the
courts to determine if the accused should be convicted. Lawyers have a sworn duty to ensure that constitutional
rights are protected and to make the courts pro-active. Policy is supposed to change upon the circumstances.
The strength of the constitution is that it can withstand any crisis, but it can be amended if theres something
new (make the rights even more protected), interpretation varies depending on the circumstances. Whenever
theres a change the interpretation varies and then comes stability. We cannot change it as if we are changing
shoes. For it doing so does not show respect to the constitution as well as to the sovereign people who had
11

agreed to that constitution especially if its a major change favoring only certain groups. It should not be the
system that should change for their want.
The system is clearly outlined in the constitution; even of the system of rising up in revolt.
All revolve around Power and Rights. The essence in any relation is power, rights, and obligations; its about
finding the proper balance between the two.
Peoples obligation is not stated in the constitution.
You doing or not doing something is a form of expression. Under the constitution, the singular obligation of the
people is to respect the rights of other people.
If theres a willful evasion of taxes then you can be liable. Civil disobedience is a form of expression, even if
your made accountable, at least you prove your point.
You dont owe any obligation to the government but you owe it to the sovereign people.
What are provided for in the constitution are limitations on the power of the state. Police power for example
should not go beyond the general welfare clause. Or that if theres eminent domain, it should be for public use
and there should be just compensation.
Essence of the constitution is good; there is power as well as rights. Power of the people as delegated to the
state. The rights of the people as observed in the constitution.

12