Sunteți pe pagina 1din 118


ART. I. THE NATIONAL TERRITORY states. However, other nations have the right of navigation and overflight over this area,
subject to the regulation of the coastal state. (has to be proclaimed by the State).
Section 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 Continental Shelf - This is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to
sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, the coastal state but outside the territorial sea. The continental shelf extends 200 n.m.,
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other and in some cases may extend up to 350 n.m., following the natural prolongation of the
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the islands of the soil. The coastal state has the right to explore and exploit the natural resources in this
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters area, but does not extend to other materials such as shipwrecks.
of the Philippines.
: Constitution ! municipal law ! binding only within the territorial limits of the I. UNCLOS
sovereignty Archipelagic state A State constituted wholly by 1 or more archipelagos and may
: BASELINE METHOD: include other islands
1) Normal- the breadth of the territorial sea is measured from the low water- Archipelago A group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting
line, following the indentations of the coast waters and other natural features which are so closely
2) Straight- drawn as straight lines connecting appropriate points on the interrelated that such form an intrinsic geographical, economic
coast, without departing to any appreciable extent from the general and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as
direction of the coast such
Territorial sea A marginal belt of maritime water adjacent to the base lines
Internal Waters ABSOLUTE extending 12 nm outward
SOVEREIGNTY. Waters around, Subject to the right of innocent passage* by other states
between and connecting the Baselines Low waterline along the coast as marked on large scale charts
islands of the Phil. Archipelago, officially recognized by the coastal state
regardless of their breadth and Internal All parts of the sea landwards from the baseline and inland
dimensions, including the waters in waters/territorial rivers and lakes [under 1973 Consti, no right of innocent
bays, rivers and lakes. No right of waters passage]
innocent passage for foreign (ALL criminal laws Established right of innocent passage
vessels exists. Also known as apply) BUT: this new rule only applies to areas NOT previously
waters on the landward side of considered as internal waters
baselines from which the breadth Insular shelf Composed of:
of the territorial sea is calculated. 1) Seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent
to the coastal state but outside the territorial sea
Territorial Sea [12 n.m.] an 2) Seabed and subsoil adjacent to islands
adjacent belt of sea with a breadth Right to:
of 12 nautical miles measured from 1) Explore and exploit natural resources
the baselines of a state and over 2) Erect installations needed
which the state has sovereignty. 3) Erect safety zone with radius of 500 m.
Ships of all states enjoy right of *Innocent passage- passage not prejudicial to the interest of the coastal state or
innocent passage. contrary to the principles of international law.
Right of Innocent Passage: Test WON it is an intrusive entry or is threatening to the sovereignty of the State.
1.International Straits (see
Corfu channel case) II. National Territory under the 1987 Consti
2.Territorial Sea NO air
passage for aircraft
..all other territories Changed wording from the 1973 version
generally allowed
over which the
3.Archipelagic Waters air
Philippines has
passage allowed
sovereignty or
Contiguous zone [24 n.m.]
its terrestrial, fluvial 1) Terrestrial- all surfaces of land above the sea
over which the coastal state may
and aerial domains, 2) Fluvial- inland waters: bays and rivers, streams,
exercise limited control necessary
including its territorial internal waters, sea waters landwards from the
to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and
sea, the seabed, the baseline
regulations within its territory or territorial sea.
subsoil, the insular 3) Aerial- air directly above its terrestrial and fluvial
shelves, and other domains
Exclusive economic zone [200 n.m.] A coastal nation has control of all economic
submarine areas
resources within this zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of
those resources, which include the sea, seabed, and subsoil to the exclusion of other

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Magallona vs. Ermita [Baselines Law, Art. I, UNCLOS, RA9522] organized government to which the great body of inhabitants render habitual
RA9522 adjusted the countrys archipelagic baselines and classified the baseline regime obedience (people, territory, sovereignty, government).
of nearby territories. Amended the old Baselines law (RA3046), which was compliant to - People: Community of persons sufficient in number and capable of
UNCLOS I and codified the sovereign right of states parties over their territorial sea but maintaining the continued existence of the community and held together by
did not determine its breadth. RA9522, is compliant with UNCLOS III, which prescribes a common bond of law.
the water-land ratio, length and contour of baselines of archipelagic states like the - Sovereignty:
Philippines and sets the deadline for the application for the extended continental shelf. o Legal sovereignty: supreme power to affect legal interests either
RA9522 therefore shortened 1 baseline, optimized the location of some basepoints around by legislative, executive or judicial action (lodged in the people
the archipelago and classified adjacent territories, namely the Kalayaan Island Group and exercised by state agencies).
(KIG) and the Scarborough Shoal, as regimes of islands whose islands generate their o Political sovereignty: sum total of all the influences in a state,
own applicable maritime zones. Constitutional. legal and non-legal which determine the course of law.
- Government: Institution or aggregate of institutions by which an
First, RA9522 is a statutory tool to demarcate the countrys maritime zones and independent society makes and carries out those rules of action which are
continental shelf under the UNCLOS III, and not to delineate Philippine territory. UNCLOS necessary to enable men to live in a social state.
III has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss of territory. It is a multilateral treaty
regulating sea-use rights over maritime zones, contiguous zone, and continental shelves Can Muslims have a state? Yes based on the definition it is possible.
that UNCLOS III delimits. On the other hand, baselines laws such as RA9522 are Self executing v. non-self executing: When there is a specific right (OPOSA) then it
enacted by the state parties to mark out specific basepoints along their coasts from which can be a source of rights and obligation.
baselines are drawn, either straight or contoured, to serve as geographic starting points
to measure the breadth of the maritime zones and continental shelf. Thus, they are Presidential form of government: there is a separation of powers -- legislative,
nothing but statutory mechanisms for the states parties to delimit with precision the executive and judicial.
extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. In turn, this gives notice to the Parliamentary government:
rest of the international community of the scope of the maritime space and submarine 1. The members of the government or cabinet or the executive arm are also
areas within which states parties exercise treaty-based rights. members of the legislature.
2. The government or cabinet consisting of the political leaders of the majority
Second, RA9522s use of the framework of regime of islands to determine the maritime party or of a coalition who are also members of the legislature, is in effect a
zones of the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal are not inconsistent with the Philippines committee of the legislature.
claim of sovereignty. Petitioners believe that such weakens our territorial claim. A look at 3. The government or cabinet has a pyramidal structure at the apex of which is the
RA3046 and RA9522 show that the latter mainly followed the base points mapped by the prime minister.
former; under both, the KIG and the Scarborough Shoal are still outside of the baselines 4. The government or cabinet remains in power only for as long as it enjoys the
drawn around the Philippine archipelago. RA9522, by optimizing the location of the support of the majority of the legislature.
basepoints, increase the Philippines total maritime space. Congress, if they included both 5. Government and legislature are possessed of control devices with which each
islands inside our baselines, might be accused of departing to an appreciable extent from can demand the other immediate political responsibility.
the general configuration of the archipelago.
Republican State: wherein all government authority emanates from the people and
Third, RA9522 and UNCLOS III are not incompatible with the Constitutions delineation of exercised by representative chosen by the people.
internal waters. Petitioners contend that the law converts internal waters into archipelagic The Philippines is not only a representative or republican state but also shares some
waters, hence subjecting them to the right of innocent passage. Philippines still exercises aspects of direct democracy such as initiative and referendum.
sovereignty over these waters under UNCLOS III. The political branches of the Philippine
government, in the competent discharge of their constitutional powers, may pass State: is the corporate entity
legislation designating routes within the archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea Government: is one of the elements of a state and is the institution through which the
lanes passage. In the absence of municipal legislation, international law norms in UNCLOS state exercises its powers.
III operate to grant innocent passage rights over the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, Administration: consists of the set of people without a change in either state or
subject to the treatys limitations and conditions for their exercise. government (changes)

Tondo Medical v. CA
ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES: In 1999, the DOH launched the Health Sector Reform Agenda (HSRA). Petitioners
questioned the first reform agenda involving the fiscal autonomy of government hospitals,
PRINCIPLES: particularly the collection of socialized user fees and the corporate restructuring of
government hospitals. Petitioners alleged that the implementation of the aforementioned
Sec. 1: The Philippines is a democratic and Republican State. Sovereignty resides in the reforms had resulted in making free medicine and free medical services inaccessible to
people and all government authority emanates from them. economically disadvantaged Filipinos. Posited that the HSRA is void for being in violation
of the following constitutional provisions: Art. II, Sections 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 18.
Elements of a State: The SC dismissed the petition since the abovementioned provisions do not contain
A community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a judicially enforceable rights.
definite portion of territory, independent of external control, and possessing an

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
BCDA v. COA: veterans, our countrymen who risked their lives and lost their limbs in fighting for and
Congress passed an act that created the Bases Conversion and Development Authority defending our nation.
(BCDA). The Board had the power to make compensation scheme for its employees.
BCDA adopted a 10,000peso year-end benefit (YEB) grant for contractual, regular and Instrumentalities
permanent employees following that of the BSPs scheme. BSP then increased its YEB to MIAA v. CA
30,000-35,000. The BCDA then increased to 30,000 and granted the same to BCDA MIAA is not a government-owned or controlled corporation but an instrumentality of the
members and consultants this was disallowed by COA. The SC held that under the law the National Government and thus exempt from local taxation; it does not have capital stock
BCDA members are only allowed to receive per diems of 5,000 per meeting and not to that is divided into shares. It is also a non-stock corporation because it has no members.
exceed 4 meetings in one month. YEB is only granted to the employees, but consultants MIAA is a government instrumentality vested with corporate powers to perform
do not have an employee-employer relationship with the BCDA. The claim of petitioners efficiently its governmental functions. It is like any other government instrumentality,
that under Art. 2 of the Constitution under the declaration of policies they should be except MIAA is vested with corporate powers. MIAA exercises the governmental powers of
granted the benefits because they have mouths to feed and stomachs to fill. The SC held eminent domain, police authority and the levying of fees and charges, at the same time,
the provisions in Article 2 are non-self executing and therefore cannot be used to support MIAA exercises "all the powers of a corporation under the Corporation Law, insofar as
their argument. these powers are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Executive Order. Likewise,
when the law makes a government instrumentality operationally autonomous, the
Functions of government: instrumentality remains part of the National Government machinery although not
1. Constituent: compulsory functions which constitute the very bonds of society integrated with the department framework.
(peace and order from violence and robbery etc.).
2. Ministrant: Optional functions of the government (for public welfare that private Quasi-Public Corp.
wont usually do or that the government can do better than private). Phil. Society v. COA:
Due to complexities of modern society more things are considered governmental The Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was incorporated as a
functions such as housing, water supply etc. corporation by special law since at the time of its creation there was no corporation code
yet. Under the law they had the power to fine violators of the law (half would go to the
Bacani v. NACOCO municipality and the other half to them). These powers however were subsequently
NACOCO is NOT a government entity within the purview of section 2 of the Revised revoked. An EO was made that wanted to examine their books by COA. They claimed that
Administrative Code of 1917. Corporations performing certain functions of government do they are not a GOCC that would be subject to that. The SC held that they are NOT a
not acquire that status for the simple reason that they do not come under the GOCC but a private corporation. The charter test does not apply here because during that
classification of municipal or public corporation. While the National Coconut Corporation time there was no corporation code yet. Petitioners charter also shows that it is not
was organized with the purpose of adjusting the coconut industry to a position subject to any control or supervision by any government agency of the state and lastly
independent of trade preferences in the United States and of providing Facilities for the just because their functions redound to the public does not necessarily make it a public
better curing of copra products and the proper utilization of coconut by-products, a corporation.
function the government chose to exercise to promote the coconut industry; it was given
a corporate power separate and distinct from government, for it was made subject to the Serana vs. SB
provisions of Corporation Law in so far as its corporate existence and the powers that it Petitioner contends that she is not a public officer. She does not receive any salary or
may exercise are concerned. It may sue and be sued in the same manner as any other remuneration as a UP student regent. In Aparri v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that:
private corporations, and in this sense it is an entity different from our government. A public office is the right, authority, and duty created and conferred by law, by which for
a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
Unincorporated Corp. individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to
ACCFA v. CUGCO: be exercise by him for the benefit of the public. The administration of the UP is a
ACCFA was charged with ULP by the Union because of violations of the CB. ACCFA then sovereign function in line with Article XIV of the Constitution. UP performs a legitimate
became ACA. Union sought to be declared as exclusive bargaining unit (EBU). The Court governmental function by providing advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, the
of Industrial Relations (CIR) granted this. ACA filed certiorari contesting the jurisdiction of sciences, and arts, and giving professional and technical training. Moreover, U is
the CIR. The SC held that the ACA was doing government functions now not constituent maintained by the Government and it declares no dividends and is not a corporation
but ministrant (optional for government welfare due to complexities of modern society). created for profit.
Therefore being a government agency cant have an EBU because the right to strike
cannot be granted to them. Legitimacy of Governments:
1. De jure: Established by authority of a legitimate sovereign
GOCC a. Cory government was de jure since established by the authority of the
VFP vs. Reyes legitimate sovereign, the people.
The issue is whether the VFAs officers have been delegated some portion of the b. GMAs was also de jure
sovereignty of the country, to be exercised for the public benefit. The Court ruled that the 2. De facto: established in defiance of a legitimate sovereign
functions of petitioner corporation enshrined in Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 264031 should a. Government gets possession and control of or usurps by force or by
most certainly fall within the category of sovereign functions. The protection of the the voice of the majority.
interests of war veterans is not only meant to promote social justice, but is also intended b. Established and maintained by invading military forces
to reward patriotism. All of the functions in Section 4 concern the well-being of war c. Established as an independent government by inhabitants of
a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Khe: that the organization of Mrs. Aquinos Government which was met by little resistance and
The issue in this case was WON the proceedings during the Japanese period still apply or her control of the state evidenced by the appointment of the Cabinet and other key
continue after the occupation? The SC held yes because the governments established in officers of the administration, the departure of the Marcos Cabinet officials, revamp of the
the Philippines under the names of the Philippine Executive Commission and Republic of Judiciary and the Military signaled the point where the legal system then in effect,
the Philippines during the Japanese military occupation or regime were de facto had ceased to be obeyed by the Filipino.
governments. It is classified as a de facto government of the second kind or a
government of paramount force. Q: Was the Bill of Rights in effect during the interregnum after the actual and
effective take-over of power by the revolutionary government following the
The judicial acts and proceedings of the courts of justice of those governments, which are cessation of resistance by loyalist forces up to 24 March 1986 (immediately
not of a political complexion, were good and valid, and, by virtue of the well-known before the adoption of the Provisional Constitution).
principle of postliminy (postliminium) in international law, remained good and valid NO. The government in power was concededly a revolutionary government bound by no
after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines. It is part of international law that constitution, there was no Bill of Rights during the interregnum. Nevertheless, the Filipino
acts and proceedings of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of a de facto people continued to enjoy, under the ICCPR and the UDHR, almost the same rights found
government are valid. in the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution.
The revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government, assumed
There are several kinds of de facto governments: responsibility for the States good faith compliance with the Covenant to which the
1. That government that gets possession and control of or usurps by force or by Philippines is a signatory. Article 2(1) of the Covenant requires each signatory State to
the voice of the majority the rightful legal government and maintains itself respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction
against the will of the latter. the rights recognized in the present Covenant. Under Article 17(1) of the Covenant, the
2. That which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and revolutionary government had the duty to insure that [n]o one shall be subjected to
occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war (government of paramount arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
forcethis was the kind of government in this case). The Declaration, to which the Philippines is also a signatory, provides in its Article 17(2)
a. Its existence is maintained by active military power within the that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. Although the signatories to
territories and against the rightful authority of an established and the Declaration did not intend it as a legally binding document, being only a declaration,
lawful government. the Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of the generally accepted principles of
b. That while it exists it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by international law and binding on the State. Thus, the revolutionary government was also
private citizens who by acts of obedience rendered in submission to obligated under international law to observe the rights of individuals under the
such force, do not become responsible as wrongdoers for those acts, Declaration. As the de jure government, the revolutionary government could not escape
though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. responsibility for the States good faith compliance with its treaty obligations under
3. Established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who international law. (Republic vs. SB)
rise in insurrection against the parent state.
Letter of Associate Justice Puno People v. Gozo:
The CA is a new entity, different and distinct from the CA or the IAC existing prior to EO Gozo bought house and lot inside the US naval reservation. She was told by the Mayors
33, for it was created in the wake of the massive reorganization launched by the office that she didnt have a permit for reconstruction of her house. Gozo was charged
revolutionary government of Corazon Aquino in the aftermath of the people power with a violation of a municipal ordinance. She claimed that it was unconstitutional or that
(EDSA) revolution in 1986. it should not apply to her because she was inside the US bases and so the Mayor had no
A revolution has been defined as the complete overthrow of the established jurisdiction over her since US law governed there. The SC held that the Mayor has
government in any country or state by those who were previously subject to it or as a jurisdiction even if inside a military base because Philippine sovereign power is still
sudden, radical and fundamental change in the government or political system, usually present. The Philippine has not abdicated its sovereignty but has consented (based on
effected with violence or at least some acts of violence. In Kelsen's book, General comity) to the US to have preferential but NOT EXCLUSIVE jurisidiction of such offenses.
Theory of Law and State, it is defined as that which occurs whenever the legal order of a
community is nullified and replaced by a new order . . . a way not prescribed by the first Any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a restriction of its sovereign
order itself. rights. There may thus be a curtailment of what otherwise is a power plenary in
From the natural law point of view, the right of revolution has been defined as an character. That is the concept of sovereignty as auto-limitation, which, in the succinct
inherent right of a people to cast out their rulers, change their policy or effect radical language of Jellinek, is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive
reforms in their system of government or institutions by force or a general uprising when capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction. A state then, if it chooses to,
the legal and constitutional methods of making such change have proved inadequate or may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. The opinion
are so obstructed as to be unavailable. It has been said that the locus of positive law- was at pains to point out though that even then, there is at the most diminution of
making power lies with the people of the state and from there is derived the right of the jurisdictional rights, not its disappearance.
people to abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of government without regard
to the existing constitution. Its laws may as to some persons found within its territory no longer control. Nor does
It is widely known that Mrs. Aquinos rise to the presidency was not due to the matter end there. It is not precluded from allowing another power to participate in the
constitutional processes; in fact, it was achieved in violation of the provisions of exercise of jurisdictional right over certain portions of its territory. If it does so, it by no
the 1973 Constitution as a Batasang Pambansa resolution had earlier declared means follows that such areas become impressed with an alien character. They
Mr. Marcos as the winner in the 1986 presidential election. Thus it can be said retain their status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority. Its

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not disappear. So it is with the bases Our Constitution espouses the opposing view. As stated in section 5 of Article VIII, the SC
under lease to the American armed forces by virtue of the military bases agreement of has the power over all cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
1947. They are not and cannot be foreign territory. international or executive agreement, is in question.
Ichong v. Hernandez, ruled that the provisions of a treaty are always subject to
Sec. 2: The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the qualification or amendment by a subsequent law, or that it is subject to the police power
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and of the State.In Gonzales v. Hechanova, it was held that our Constitution authorizes the
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nullification of a treaty, not only when it conflicts with the fundamental law, but, also,
nations. when it runs counter to an act of Congress.

The Philippines denounces aggressive war NOT defensive war. Phillip Morris vs. Fortune Tobacco
Petitioners claim that an infringement of their respective trademarks had been committed
Some generally accepted principles of international law: and prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction against respondents. They claim
1. right of an alien to be released on bail while awaiting deportation when his that they have registered the aforementioned trademarks in their respective countries of
failure to leave the country is due to the fact that no country will accept him. origin and that, by virtue of the long and extensive usage of the same, these trademarks
2. The right of a country to establish military commissions to try war criminals. have already gained international fame and acceptance.
3. The duty to protect the premises of embassies and legations.
The Philippines adherence to the Paris Convention effectively obligates the country to
Adoption of International law and the doctrine of incorporation: honor and enforce its provisions as regards the protection of industrial property of foreign
As applied to Treaties and Agreements nationals in this country. However, any protection accorded has to be made subject to the
Taada v. Angara: [generally accepted principles of law common to civilized limitations of Philippine laws. Hence, despite Article 2 of the Paris Convention which
nations] substantially provides that (1) nationals of member-countries shall have in this country
Petition seeking to nullify the ratification of the Philippines to the WTO because the WTO rights specially provided by the Convention consistent with Philippine laws, and enjoy the
would allow foreign market to invade Filipino market to the detriment of the people. They privileges that Philippine laws grant to its nationals, and (2) while no domicile
further claimed that the WTO would limit, restrict and impair Philippine economic requirement in the country where protection is claimed shall be required of persons
sovereignty. The SC held that the WTO was not absolute but only regulates some entitled to the benefits of the Union for the enjoyment of any industrial property rights,
commercial restrictions and that the WTO was the only viable structure for multilateral foreign nationals must still observe and comply with the conditions imposed by Philippine
treaty. By their voluntary act, nations may surrender some aspects of state power in law on its nationals.
exchange for greater benefits granted or derived from convention or pact. While
sovereignty has traditionally been seen absolute it is subject to restrictions and limitations Pharmaceutical and Health Care v. Duque: [Soft law]
voluntarily agreed upon so it is not isolated from the rest of the world. The milk code was passed to give effect to the International code of marketing treaty.
DOH made regulations which was claimed to have expanded the coverage of the law (Milk
- In its Declaration of Principles and state policies, the Constitution adopts the Code). The SC held that it did expand the provisions of the law. Under the treaty it
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land, provides a prohibition on advertisement (which was what the regulation was about) but
and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and the Milk Code did not adopt this and thus we are not bound to do this. Furthermore, it
amity, with all nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by was not proven or established that it was customary international law, which would make
generally accepted principles of law, which are considered automatically part it incorporated in our country/laws. It was propounded that WHA Resolutions may
of our own laws. Pacta sunt servanda international agreements must be constitute "soft law" or non-binding norms, principles and practices that influence state
performed in good faith. A treaty is not a mere moral obligation but creates a behavior.
legally binding obligation on the parties.
- A state which has contracted valid international obligations is bound to make in its "Soft law" does not fall into any of the categories of international law, it is an expression
legislations such modifications as may be necessary to ensure the fulfillment of of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior. (ex. UN
the obligations undertaken. Declaration of Human Rights, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a
specialized agency on intellectual property, International Labor Organization and the Food
Equal Standing of International Law and Municipal Law and Agriculture Organization).
Lim vs. Executive Secretary WHO has resorted to soft law during the SARS outbreak. It represented significant steps
A rather recent formulation of the relation of international law vis--vis municipal law was in laying the political groundwork for improved international cooperation on infectious
expressed in Philip Morris, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, to wit: diseases. These resolutions clearly define WHO member states' normative duty to
x x x Withal, the fact that international law has been made part of the law of the cooperate fully with other countries and with WHO in connection with infectious disease
land does not by any means imply the primacy of international law over national surveillance and response to outbreaks. The duty is neither binding nor enforceable,
law in the municipal sphere. Under the doctrine of incorporation as applied in most but it powerful politically.
countries, rules of international law are given a standing equal, not superior, to For an international rule to be considered as customary law, it must be established that
national legislation. such rule is being followed by states because they consider it obligatory to comply with
From the perspective of public international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law such rules (opinio juris). Respondents have not presented any evidence to prove that the
pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Further, a party to a treaty is not WHA Resolutions, although signed by most of the member states, were in fact enforced or
allowed to invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to
perform a treaty.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
practiced by at least a majority of the member states; neither have respondents proven The government must maintain an independent foreign policy and give paramount
that any compliance by member states with said WHA Resolutions was obligatory in consideration to national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and self-
nature. determination.
Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions are
customary international law that may be deemed part of the law of the land. Legislation is Lim v. Executive Secretary:
necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into domestic law. The Balikatan exercises between the US and the Philippines (training program after 911) was
provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of being conducted based on the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). It was claimed that the MDT
the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a was only to be enforced in case of armed attack of an external aggressor. The SC held
law enacted by the legislature. that the Balikatan was covered by the VFA which allows regulatory mechanism allowing
the US to visit when approved by the Philippine government. The constitution shows
Sec. 3: Civilian authority is at all times, supreme over the military. The armed forces of antipathy towards foreign military troops and WON they are engaged in combat is a
the Philippines is the protector of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the question of fact (here it is combat related activities and not actual combat itself which
sovereignty of the State and the integrity of the national territory. justifies the exercise).

Civilian Supremacy: Sec. 8: The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy
IBP v. Zamora: of freedoms from nuclear weapons in its territory.
What is being assailed is the constitutional grounds of the order of president Erap in
deploying marines to join the PNP in visibility campaignto patrol the metropolis because The policy is freedom from nuclear weapons exception to this policy however can be
of high crime rates. The SC held that it was not unconstitutional because of the made when made by political departments and justified by demands of the national
Presidents power as commander in chief. This power is not limited to emergency but interest (the policy doesnt prohibit the use of nuclear energy).
also ensuring maintenance of day-to-day peace. Furthermore it does not violate civilian
supremacy clause because the marines arent doing anything but providing support and Sec. 9: The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the
cooperation, in fact, the Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP- prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through
Philippine Marines joint visibility patrols. policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard
of living and an improved quality of life for all.
Sec. 4: The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
government may call upon the people to defend the State and in the fulfillment thereof, Sec. 10: The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
all citizens may be required, under the conditions provided by law, to render personal
military or civil service. Social justice: equalization of economic, political, and social opportunities with special
emphasis on the duty of the state to tilt the balance of social forces by favoring the
Sec. 5: The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, disadvantaged in life.
and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the
people of the blessings of democracy. Sec. 11: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights.
Kilosbayan vs. Morato
As already stated, however, these provisions are not self-executing. They do not confer Sec. 12: The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
rights which can be enforced in the courts but only provide guidelines for legislative or the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the
executive action. By authorizing the holding of lottery for charity, Congress has in effect mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and
determined that consistently with these policies and principles of the Constitution, the duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
PCSO may be given this authority. That is why we said with respect to the opening by the moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
PAGCOR of a casino in Cagayan de Oro, "the morality of gambling is not a justiciable
issue. Gambling is not illegal per se. . . . It is left to Congress to deal with the activity as Wisconsin v. Yoder: [Compulsory Education]
it sees fit." Respondents are members of the Amish community. Wisconsin's compulsory school-
attendance law required them to cause their children to attend public or private school
Sec. 6: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable. until reaching age 16 but the respondents declined to send their children, ages 14 and
15, to public school after they complete the eighth grade as part of their Amish practice
STATE POLICIES: to avoid their modern influences. There is no doubt as to the power of a State, having a
high responsibility for education of its citizens, to impose reasonable regulations for the
Sec. 7: The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other control and duration of basic education. Providing public schools ranks at the very apex of
states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, the function of a State. Yet even this paramount responsibility was made to yield to the
national interest, and the right to self-determination. right of parents to provide an equivalent education in a privately operated system. As
that case suggests, the values of parental direction of the religious upbringing and
Generally, these provisions are that they are not self-executing provisions and thus need education of their children in their early and formative years have a high place in our
some implementing acts of Congress. society. Thus, a State's interest in universal education, however highly we rank it, is not
totally free from a balancing process when it impinges on fundamental rights
and interests, such as those specifically protected by the Free Exercise Clause

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
of the First Amendment, and the traditional interest of parents with respect to the cited for contempt. The SC ruled that the invocation of executive privilege was properly
religious upbringing of their children so long as they, in the words of Pierce, prepare made and the Senate failed to show a compelling reason in rebutting the presumption of
(them) for additional obligations. executive privilege for the divulging of the answers.

Meyer v. Nebraska: the state may not prohibit the teaching of foreign languages to Sec. 18: The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the
children. rights of workers and promote their welfare.

In education, the primary right belongs to the parents. The Constitution affirms the Sec. 19: The state shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy
primary right of parents in the rearing of children to prepare them for a productive civic effectively controlled by Filipinos.
and social life and at the same time it affirms the secondary and supportive role of the
State. Garcia v. BOI: Taiwanese investors of Bataan Petrochemical Corporation (BPC) wanted
The State as parens patriae has authority and duty to step in where parents fail to or to transfer from Bataan to Batangas because they felt there were better labor conditions,
are unable to cope with their duties to their children. LPG gas, and they would partner with Shell. The SC held the right of final choice where to
transfer was not with the investors. Under the Constitution there are provisions regarding
Sec. 13: The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation- building and shall national economy and patrimony. Petrochemical affects national interest thus government
promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. It should have final choice and Bataan was the better choice because there their partner
shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement would be a local company (PNOC) while if they went to Batangas it would be a foreign
in public and civic affairs. company (SHELL).

Protection begins from conception in order to prevent the State from adopting the Sec. 20: The State recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages
doctrine in the US Supreme Court decisions, which liberalized abortion. private enterprise and provides incentives to needed investments.

Sec. 14: The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the Sec.21: The State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
Sec. 22: The state recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
Sec. 15: The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill communities within the framework of national unity and development.
health consciousness among them.
Sec. 23: The State shall encourage non-governmental community-based, or sectoral
Sec. 16: The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.
healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Sec. 24: The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in nation-
Oposa v. Factoran: [Inter-generational Responsibility] building.
Minors represented by parents as a class of taxpayers filed a case against the DENR
secretary enjoining the latter to cancel all timber licenses and cease and desist from Sec. 25: The State shall ensure the autonomy of Local Governments.
renewing or approving new timber licenses based on right to a balanced and healthful
ecology. The SC held that the case involved a class suit where all have a common and Sec. 26: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and
general interest representing their generations and generations yet unborn prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
(intergenerational responsibility). There is a cause of action based on Art. 2, S. 16 of the
Constitution which was deemed self-executing. Pamatong v. Comelec:
Petitioner wanted to run for President but the COMELEC denied his certificate of
These basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to candidacy. Petitioner, thus, filed this petition alleging that his right to equal access to
exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned in the opportunities for public service under Section 26, Article II of the Constitution has been
fundamental charter, it is because of the fear of its framers that without such mention, violated. The Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to run for or hold
there will come a time when all would be lost. Such right carries with it the correlative public office, Section 26 neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the
duty to refrain from impairing the environment. level of an enforceable right. There is merely a privilege subject to limitations imposed by
law. Moreover, the SC explained, that provisions under Article II are generally considered
MMDA Manila Bay Case: Continuing mandamus for environment cases (also upheld the not self-executing.
right and related it to the right to life). Equal access to opportunities to public office may be subjected to limitations such as
practicality, costs, etc. As long as the limitations apply to everyone without discrimination
Sec. 17: The State shall give priority to education, science and technology, arts, culture, then equal access clause is not violated.
and sports to foster patriotism and nationalism, accelerate social progress and promote
total human liberation and development. Sec. 27: The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in public service and take
This however does not mean that the government is not free to balance the demands of positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.
education against other competing and urgent demands.
Neri after appearing and testifying before the Senate refused to answer three questions
pertaining to the NBN-ZTE deal invoking executive privilege. After not showing up, he was

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Sec. 28: Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and
implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
Neri vs. Senate
Neri after appearing and testifying before the Senate refused to answer three questions
pertaining to the NBN-ZTE deal invoking executive privilege. After not showing up, he was
cited for contempt. The SC ruled that the invocation of executive privilege was properly
made and the Senate failed to show a compelling reason in rebutting the presumption of
executive privilege for the divulging of the answers.

There are certain types of information which the government may withhold from the
public," that there is a "governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to
state secrets regarding military, diplomatic and other national security matters"; and that
"the right to information does not extend to matters recognized as privileged
information under the separation of powers, by which the Court meant
Presidential conversations, correspondences, and discussions in closed-door
Cabinet meetings.

PSB and Garcia vs. Senate Impeachment Court [Carpio Dissent]:

Government officials and employees have the obligation to disclose their assets to the
public, and the public has the right to know the assets of government officials and
employees. This obligation of government officials and employees to disclose all their
assets is absolute and has no exception. The right of the public to know the assets of
government officials and employees is also absolute and has no exception.

In Re: Production of Court Records:

In line with the publics constitutional right to information, the Court has adopted a policy
of transparency with respect to documents in its possession or custody, necessary to
maintain the integrity of its sworn duty to adjudicate justiciable disputes. This grant,
however, is not as open nor as broad as its plain terms appear to project, as it is subject
to the limitations the laws and the Courts own rules provide. As heretofore stated, for the
Court and the Judiciary, a basic underlying limitation is the need to preserve and
protect the integrity of their main adjudicative function. To qualify for protection
under the deliberative process privilege, the agency must show that the document is both
(1) predecisional and (2) deliberative:

A document is predecisional under the deliberative process privilege if it precedes, in

temporal sequence, the decision to which it relates. Communications are considered
predecisional if they were made in the attempt to reach a final conclusion.

A material is deliberative, on the other hand, if it reflects the give- and-take of the
consultative process. The key question in determining whether the material is
deliberative in nature is whether disclosure of the information would discourage candid
discussion within the agency. If the disclosure of the information would expose the
governments decision- making process in a way that discourages candid discussion
among the decision-makers (thereby undermining the courts ability to perform their
functions), the information is deemed privileged.

Gamboa vs. Teves [generally, provisions outside Art. II-self-executing, unless

as may be provided by law]
While some constitutional provisions are self-executing, others are not. A constitutional
provision is self-executing if it fixes the nature and extent of the right conferred and the
liability imposed such that they can be determined by an examination and construction of
its terms, and there is no language indicating that the subject is referred to the
legislature for action. On the other hand, if the provision needs a supplementary or
enabling legislation, it is merely a declaration of policy and principle, which is not self-

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS rights of free expression and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are
essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions.
" Formal declaration or enumeration of the fundamental rights secured and - The priority is seen when it comes to laws restricting property rights, which
guaranteed by the Constitution to individuals to protect them from arbitrary and require only that it is not oppressive, arbitrary, discriminatory to remain valid.
despotic exercise of governmental powers While laws that restrict freedom of speech and assembly require that such
" Restrictions are directed against the state and do not govern relations between must pose a grave and immediate danger of a substantive evil, which the State
private persons. has a right to protect. (Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Org. v. PBM Co.)

SECTION 1: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process C. Procedural Due Process
of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the law. " Need for notice and opportunity to be heard (not actual hearing)
" Guarantee of procedural fairness
A. Three Great Powers of the Government:
2 Kinds of Due Process:
1. Police Power The most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers,
1. Procedural: Mode of procedure which government agencies must
extending to all the great public needs.
follow in the enforcement and application of laws.
- That inherent and plenary power in the State, which enables it to prohibit all that is
a. Criminal:
hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.
i. An extraditee does not have the right to access evidence in the
- Rests upon public necessity and the right of state and the public to self-protection.
hand of government during the investigation stage but has it
Lodged in the legislature but may be delegated to the executive.
during the judicial phase.
ii. A law is vague and does not satisfy the due process need for
2. Eminent Domain
notice when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
o Right of the state to acquire private property for public use upon payment
common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning
of just compensation
and differ as to its application.
3. Taxation
1. Violates due process for failure to accord persons fair
o Power of the state to raise revenues. Such must be for public purpose,
notice of the conduct to avoid.
equitable and uniform
2. Leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out
its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
" Presumption of constitutionality
government muscle.
b. Administrative:
Principal Yardstick against exercise of power
i. Requirements:
Due process clause
1. The right to actual or constructive notice of the institution
Equal protection clause
of proceedings, which may affect a respondents legal
Protected Rights
2. A real opportunity to be heard personally or with the
" Right to Life not just the protection of the right to be alive or security of
assistance of counsel to present witnesses and evidence
ones limb against physical harm. It is right to a good life emphasizing on
in ones favor, and to defend ones rights.
the quality of living
3. A tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so
" Right to Liberty measure of freedom, which may be enjoyed in a
constituted as to afford a person charged administratively
civilized community. It is the right of the citizen to be free to use his
by a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as
faculties in all lawful ways.
impartiality and
" Right to Property include vested rights, does not include public office,
4. Finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial
license or mere privilege unless such has evolved into some form of
property protected by the constitution. This is everything over which man
ii. Quasi-judicial proceedings notice and hearing is always required
may have exclusive dominion or ownership.
but in performance of executive or legislative functions (such as
issuing internal rules and regulations) an administrative body
B.1 Primacy of Human Rights - There was an issue as to the existence of human
need not comply with requirements of notice and hearing.
rights during the interregnum between the EDSA revolution and the issuance of the
iii. Changing existing rates is quasi-judicial when specifically applied
Freedom Constitution. The Bill of Rights in the 1973 Constitution were not operative. BUT,
to one party and so it must be preceded by a hearing.
the revolutionary government, after installing itself as the de jure government,
assumed responsibility for the States good faith compliance with the International
2. Substantive: Not rigid but is grounded on reasonableness.
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Covenant) and the Universal Declaration of
a. Laws which interfere with life, liberty, or property comply with
Human Rights (Declaration) which remained in effect during the interregnum.
substantive due process when:
(Republic vs. Sandiganbayan)
i. The interests of the public generally, as distinguished form those
of a particular class, require such interference.
Hierarchy of Rights: while the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of
ii. That the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment
human rights over property rights is recognized. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the
of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
iii. Lupangco v. CA: The state may not prohibit candidates for board
exams from attending review classes etc. because it is
%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% unreasonable arbitrary and violates academic freedom of schools. %
c. Extraditee does NOT pose a danger to the community.
" Purpose of procedural due process: (a.) contribute to the accuracy and thus - Once bail has been granted, it cannot be revoked.
minimize error in deprivation (b.) gives a sense of rational participation in a decision
than can affect his destiny and thus enhances his dignity as a thinking person. Extradition Proceedings- considered in the nature of criminal cases because there is arrest
" Violations may be cured by motion for reconsideration detention and forced transfer to another state. Thus due process must be observed by
providing bail. (Government of HK vs. Olalia)
a. Requirements of due process in a Judicial Proceedings C-J-O-J e. Academic Cases
1. Court or tribunal with judicial power to hear and determine cases. procedural requirements for academic cases:
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person or property I-A-I-A-C
3. Opportunity to be heard 1. Informed in writing of the nature of the accusation
4. Judgment rendered upon a lawful hearing (Banco Fil v. Palanca) 2. Right to answer charges, optionally with counsel
3. Right of accused to be informedof evidence against them
Quasi in rem- Property alone is responsible for claim in proceedings, but the individual is 4. Right to adduce own evidence
still named as defendant (unlike in rem) 5. Evidence must be considered. (ADMU v. Capulong)
- Notice to the defendant in this case is NOT absolutely essential.
- Presumption of regularity. That upon notice to the property, there is notice to the Educational Institutions enjoy academic freedom:
individual. 1. Who may teach
- Publication is already deemed sufficient for procedural due process. 2. What may be taught
3. How it is taught
Aspects of the Proceedings 4. Who is admitted to study- according to this, they may expel students who
A judge should be mindful that his duty is the application of general law to particular violate school rules and regulations.
instances, that ours is a government of laws and not of men, and that he violates his duty
as a minister of justice under such a system if he seeks to do what he may personally f. Deportation Proceedings - The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. It is
consider substantial justice in a particular case and disregards the general law as he an act by or under the authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against
knows it to be binding on him. He should administer his office with due regard to the undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public
integrity of the system of the law itself, remembering that he is not a depository of good.
arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of the law. (State Prosecutors vs. effect is Penal in character, so there must be due process .I-W-S-H-D
Muros) 1. Preliminary Investigation- to determine if they are aliens
2. Warrant of Arrest issued after finding of just cause
Publicity and TV Coverage 3. Charge must specify act or omission
- Mere exposure to publicity does not affect impartiality in this case. 4. Right to be heard and present evidence upon lawful hearing (no
- Person alleging must have direct proof of influence, not just mere possibility. prosecutor; summary proc.)
- The public cannot be excluded, especially when the issue is of public interest. (People 5. Final declaration of deportation with basis (Lao Gi vs. CA)
vs. Tehankee)
g. Fixing of Rates and Regulation of Professions
b. Requirements of due process in an Administrative Proceedings or Quasi-
Judicial Proceedings H-C-S-S-B-I-R Standards for regulation of rates:
1. Right to hearing including right to present case and submit evidence 1. Notice and Hearing (important for quasi judicial bodies because without it
2. Tribunal must consider evidence presented the courts would lack jurisdiction)
3. Decision must have something to support itself 2. Rate must be reasonable and just (may be implied)
4. Evidence must be substantial 3. Rate must not be confiscatory and oppressive. (Globe Telecom vs. NTC)
5. Decision must be based on evidence presented or at least contained in the
record - Government bodies have 2 powers:
6. Tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration 1. Quasi- Legislative- general rules, which will affect everybody in a certain class.
7. Board or body must render its decision in a manner where parties can know the No form of notice, hearing or cross-examination required.
various issues and the reason for decision. (Ang Tibay v. CIR) 2. Quasi-judicial- applies exclusively to a specific entity or person. Any change
must be made after due notice and hearing.
c. Extradition Proceedings Price Fixing- a relaxed procedure is followed in administrative bodies, such as the ERB
1. NOT Entitled to notice and hearing before issuance of warrant which, in matters of rate or price fixing is considered as exercising a quasi-legislative,
- Notice would defeat the purpose of the arrest. Guilt is not adjudged during these not quasi-judicial, function. As such administrative agency, it is not bound by the strict or
proceedings. technical rules of evidence governing court proceedings. (Maceda v. ERB)
2. Entitled to notice and hearing during the proceedings. Regulation of Profession- a professional license becomes a property right after its
3. Bail/provisional liberty- not generally given, but bail may be given under issuance.
special circumstances: - Cannot be taken away without due process, notice or hearing.
a. When extraditee is NOT a flight risk
b. Special Humanitarian considerations

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Their license is granted in the form of an appointment, which allows them to engage in ABAKADA vs. Ermita - The input tax is not a property or property right within the
pilotage until they retire at the age 70 years. The Court declared that the pre-evaluation constitutional purview of the due process clause. A VAT-registered persons entitlement to
cancellation prescribed makes the Order unreasonable and constitutionally infirm. In a the creditable input tax is a mere statutory privilege. The right to credit input tax as
real sense, it is a deprivation of property without due process of law. against the output tax is clearly a privilege created by law, a privilege that also the law
(Corona v. UHPAP) can remove, or in this case, limit.

Dismissal in Private Sector V-H-C British American Tobacco - The classification freeze provision addressed Congress's
1. Must be for a valid reason administrative concerns in the simplification of tax administration of sin products,
2. Must be given the opportunity to be heard, due process elimination of potential areas for abuse and corruption in tax collection, buoyant and
3. Any evidence derived from confession w/o counsel is inadmissible. stable revenue generation, and ease of projection of revenues. Consequently, there
can be no denial of the equal protection of the laws since the rational-basis test
- Right to counsel is a right even in civil and administrative proceedings. The Labor Code is amply satisfied.
expressly grants the right to counsel. (Salaw v. NLRC)
Tests/Standards (Strict Scrutiny, Rational Basis Standard, Heightened or
Ordinance/Statute/Memo/Rules Immediate Scrutiny)
- When a statute lacks a comprehensible standard, it violates due process for failure to Generally the judiciary will defer to the legislature unless there is discrimination against a
accord persons, especially persons targeted by it, fair notice of conduct to avoid, and it discrete and insular minority, or infringement of a fundamental right. Consequently,
leaves law enforcers with unbridled discretion in carrying out provisions. two standards of judicial review were established:
- The lack of comprehensible standards means the statute is vague and amounts to a lack 1. Strict scrutiny for laws dealing with freedom of the mind or restricting the political
of due process because of lack of FAIR NOTICE and there is UNDUE DELEGATION. process.
2. The rational basis standard of review for economic legislation.
As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and A third standard, denominated as heightened or immediate scrutiny, was later
differ as to its application." It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: adopted for evaluating classifications based on gender and legitimacy.
(1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by
it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and The SC has often applied the rational basis test mainly in analysis of equal protection
(2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes challenges. Using the rational basis examination, laws or ordinances are upheld if they
an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle. rationally further a legitimate governmental interest.
But the act must be utterly vague on its face; that is to say, it cannot be clarified by
either a saving clause or by construction. (People vs. Nazario) Whereas in applying strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather
than substantial, governmental interest and on the absence of less restrictive means for
The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that "a statute which either forbids or requires achieving that interest. In terms of judicial review of statutes or ordinances, strict
the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily scrutiny refers to the standard for determining the quality and the amount of
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due governmental interest brought to justify the regulation of fundamental freedoms. Strict
process of law." scrutiny is used today to test the validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech,
The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand, decrees that "a governmental purpose gender, or race as well as other fundamental rights such as suffrage, judicial access and
may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade interstate travel.
the area of protected freedoms."
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute and to one which is D. Substantive Due Process
overbroad because of possible "chilling effect" upon protected speech. " Interest of public requires such interference and the means are reasonably necessary
This rationale does not apply to penal statutes. Criminal statutes have general in terrorem for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for this reason " Liberty of the citizen may be restrained in the interest of public health, public order
alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful and safety, or anything else within the scope of police power.
conduct. In the area of criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free
speech. The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then are inapt for testing the validity of It is the duty of the legislature to: I-R
penal statutes. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan) 1. Determine what the interests of the public require
2. Determine what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests.
Closure proceedings are a valid exercise of police power of the State to protect the - The determination, of the legislature on what is a proper exercise of police power is
public from the dissipation of funds and bank runs. It does not need notice and hearing as subject to the supervision of the courts (US v. Toribio)
long as there is subsequent judicial review. (CB v. CA)
Procedure: E-R-E Standards of Police Power
1. Examination by Central Bank 1. Lawful Purpose- for the general welfare of the community.
2. Report by Monetary Board on the bank concerned 2. Lawful Method- reasonable, non-oppressive and non-arbitrary means and
3. Prima Facie evidence about the banks bad financial condition methods employed in connection to the accomplishment of the purpose.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- Police power cannot interfere with private property for purely aesthetic purposes. But Profession- is a legitimate subject of Police Power. So long as professionals and other
where the act is reasonably within a proper consideration of and care for the public workers meet reasonably regulatory standards, no such deprivation of property exists.
health, safety or comfort, it should not be disturbed by the courts. (Churchill v. - The state can likewise regulate entry into business as long as it is reasonable. (JMM
Rafferty) Promotion and Management v. CA)

- The State may not under the guise of Police Power, permanently divest owners of the Test of Reasonableness of a Persons Expectation of Privacy
beneficial use of their property and practically confiscate them solely to preserve or 1. Whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective)
assure the aesthetic appearance of the community. expectation of privacy.
An ordinance may be considered invalid if: L-NP-LS 2. That the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable
1. It fails to state any policy to guide or limit the mayors discretion (objective). (Katz vs. US)
2. It expresses no purpose to be attained by requiring a permit
3. enumerates no condition for its grant or refusal Pollo vs. Constantino - Public employer intrusions on the constitutionally protected
4. Lacks standards, conferring upon the mayor arbitrary and unrestricted privacy interests of government employees for noninvestigatory, work-related purposes,
power. (People v. Fajardo) as well as for investigations of work-related misconduct, should be judged by the
standard of reasonableness under all the circumstances. Under this reasonableness
For an ordinance to be valid, it must not only be within the corporate powers of the standard, both the inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable:
LGU to enact and pass according to the procedure prescribed by law, it must also conform Ordinarily, a search of an employees office by a supervisor will be "justified at its
to the following substantive requirements: (1) must not contravene the Constitution or inception" when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up
any statute; (2) must not be unfair or oppressive; (3) must not be partial or evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related misconduct, or that the search is
discriminatory; (4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade; (5) must be general and necessary for a noninvestigatory work-related purpose such as to retrieve a needed file.
consistent with public policy; and (6) must not be unreasonable. The search will be permissible in its scope when "the measures adopted are
reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of
Power to tax- police power to regulate behavior. Congress can legislate morality through the nature of the [misconduct]."
sin taxes. (Ermita-Malate v. City Mayor of Manila)
E. Equal Protection of the Law
- The extinction of Mortgage and other liens owned by legitimate creditors of AGRIX " Guarantees legal equality of all before the law
constitutes a taking without due process. The mortgages and loans are purely private and " Equal protection clause can also be violated not by denial of equality but by creating
have not shown to be affected with private interest; therefore, there was no cause to a system that can foster inequality (People v. Vera)
deprive the private individuals of vested property rights. Outright confiscation of Property " The guaranty of Equal Protection is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable
without NOTICE and HEARING is invalid. If there is a taking, there must be Just classification.
Compensation. (NDC v. Phil Veterans Bank)
For classifications to be reasonable: S-G-L-E
- Legislature, may not, under the guise of protecting public interest, arbitrarily interfere 1. It must rest on substantial distinctions
with private businesses, which is a property right of the owner. Theaters, cinemas and 2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law
other exhibitions cannot be considered Public Utilities (Balacuit v. CFI) 3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same class (People v. Cayat)
Vagueness a statute or act is vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men
of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its - it does not demand absolute equality among residents, it merely requires that all
application. It violates due process for failure to accord to person fair notice of the persons similarly situated shall be treated alike, under like circumstances; both as to
conduct to avoid and it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its privileges conferred and liabilities enforced. (Tiu v. CA)
provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of government muscles.
Void-for-vagueness doctrine a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of The difference in status between citizens and aliens constitute a basis for reasonable
an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess its classification in the exercise of police power. SC held that the disputed law was enacted
meaning and differ as to its application to remedy an actual threat and danger to natl economy posed by alien dominance and
control of the retail trade, and would free citizens from such dominance and control.
Overbreadth doctrine a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which (Ichong v. Hernandez)
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedom.
The term non-resident alien and its obverse resident alien, must be given their
Test of a valid ordinance: C-U-P-T-G-U technical connotation under our law on immigration. There lies substantial differences
(a) does not contravene the constitution or statute between the two. (General Milling Corp. v. Torres)
(b) must not be unfair or oppressive
(c) must not be partial and discriminatory The concept of relative constitutionality.
(d) must not prohibit but may regulate trade The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a mere
(e) must be general and consistent with public policy
(f) must not be unreasonable (White Light v. City of Manila)

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
comparison of its provisions with applicable provisions of the Constitution, since the A. Freedom from Search and Arrest
statute may be constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in its Purpose:
application to another. (a) To protect the privacy and sanctity of his person, property and house
A statute valid at one time may become void at another time because of altered (b) To guarantee against unlawful arrest and other forms of restraint.
circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or
confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to With a valid Without a valid Without Warrant Other nature or
inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions. In the Philippine setting, warrant warrant (by a Private purpose
this Court declared the continued enforcement of a valid law as unconstitutional as a Individual)
consequence of significant changes in circumstances. Requirements: 1) Incidental to 1) Subpoena
Applicability of the equal protection clause. 1) Issued upon lawful arrest 1) SOP (People vs. duces tecum
[C]ourts are not confined to the language of the statute under challenge in determining probable cause (Sec 12, Rule 126 Marti) 2) Administrative
whether that statute has any discriminatory effect. A statute nondiscriminatory on its face 2) Personally of Rules of Court) 2) Security Check Inspection
may be grossly discriminatory in its operation. Though the law itself be fair on its face examined by the 2) Plain view (People vs
and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with judge 3) Moving vehicle Bongcarawan)
an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations 3) Examined 4) Consented
between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal under oath and warrantless search
justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution. affirmation 5) Customs
Statutes may be adjudged unconstitutional because of their effect in operation. If a law 4) Particularly searches
has the effect of denying the equal protection of the law it is unconstitutional. (Central describing the 6) Stop and Frisk
Bank Employees vs. BSP) place to be 7) Exigent and
searched and the Emergency
PAGCOR cannot find support in the equal protection clause, as the legislative records of persons or things circumstances
the Bicameral Conference Meeting show that PAGCOR's exemption from payment of to be seized (Sec. 8) suspicionless
corporate income tax, as provided in the 1997 NIRC, was not made pursuant to a valid 2 Art. III, drug tests
classification based on substantial distinctions and other requirements of a reasonable Uy v. BIR)
classification by legislative bodies, so that the law may operate only on some, and not all, 5) warrant must
without violating the equal protection clause. The legislative records show that the basis not be for more
of the grant of exemption to PAGCOR from corporate income tax was PAGCOR's own than one offense
request to be exempted. (PAGCOR vs. BIR) (Revised ROC)

The difference in the dates of payment of delinquent contributions provides a substantial NOTE: Section 2 is protection against unlawful searches by the government and its
distinction between the two classes of employers. In limiting the benefits of the agencies and does not protect citizens from unlawful searches and seizures by private
Condonation Law to delinquent employers who remit the Social Security Service (SSS) individuals. (People v. Marti)
contributions of his employees within the six (6)-month period, the legislature refused to **remedy may be found in the Civil Code and in the RPC.
allow a sweeping, non-discriminatory condonation to all delinquent employers, lest the
policy behind Social Security be undermined. (Mendoza vs. People) Search an examination of a mans house or other buildings or premises, or of his
person or his vehicle with a view to the discovery of contraband, illicit and stolen property
The law concerns only the BIR and the BOC because they have the common distinct or some evidence of guilt to be used in prosecution of a criminal action for some crime or
primary function of generating revenues for the national government through the offense charged.
collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges.
Both are bureaus under the DOF. They principally perform the special function of being When is a search a search?
the instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of its great inherent functions A Routine Checkpoint does not intrude on a motorists right to free passage without
- taxation. Such substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the purpose interruption, but it involves only a brief detention of travelers during which the vehicles
of the law. Hence, the classification and treatment accorded to the BIR and the BOC occupants are required to answer a brief question or two. As long as the vehicle is neither
under RA 9335, providing a system of rewards and sanctions through the creation of a searched, nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle
Rewards and Incentives Fund and a Revenue Performance Evaluation Board fully satisfy is limited to a visual search, routine checks cannot be regarded as violative of an
the demands of equal protection. (Bureau of Customs vs. Teves) individuals right against unreasonable search. (Valmonte v. Gen. De Villa)

SECTION 2: The right of people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and Random Drug Testing- The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are
effect against unreasonable searches and seizure or whatever nature and for any purpose "randomness" and "suspicionless." In the case of persons charged with a crime before
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issued except upon the prosecutor's office, a mandatory drug testing can never be random or suspicionless.
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they are singled out and are
affirmation of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. before the prosecutor's office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that
be the case, do not necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their
Exception: If search is reasonable right to privacy.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a must be owned by one other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time
medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA of the search and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is sufficient
9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons' right to privacy guaranteed under that the person against whom the warrant is directed has control or possession of the
Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to property sought to be seized. (Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff)
incriminate themselves. (SJS v. DDB)
Partially Invalid Warrant
Seizure as long as the property is in control of the person arrested, even if he does not No provision of law exists which requires that a warrant, partially defective in specifying
possess ownership, such may be seized (Burgos v. Chief of Staff) some items sought to be seized yet particular with respect to the other items, should be
- Stopping a person, even though an arrest is not commenced, is a seizure (Terry v. nullified as a whole. (Microsoft v. Maxicorp)
Ohio) - In cases where a different name is inserted as the owner of a property to be searched,
it is only a harmless defect, as long as it is only a search of the premises and not of
Arrest to deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. It is he taking of a person persons.
into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense.
- When a judge issues almost exactly the same warrant as the old one, wherein only the
In arrest cases there must be: municipality or number of the address is changed, the old warrant is deemed revoked by
1. probable cause that a crime has been committed the new warrant, and it is presumed that the new warrant is issued in order to correct
2. and that the person to be arrested committed it, some defect in the old warrant.
*Which of course can exist without any showing that evidence of the crime will be found
at premises under that person's control. (Webb v. De Leon) As to Assailing the Illegality of a Seizure:
It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose
Entrapment vs. Instigation: rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and
Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of apprehending criminals. seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. (Stonehill v.
Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. Diokno)
Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the would-be accused into
the commission of the offense. In such a case, the instigators become co-principals The right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to the
themselves. corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the
corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. (Stonehill v.
Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigating person and the accused Diokno)
is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is
instigation and no conviction may be had. Where, however, the criminal intent originates As to Illegally Obtained Evidence:
in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, even after a person As to VALID legal items that have been illegally seized, it should be returned to the
acted as a decoy for the state, or public officials furnished the accused an opportunity for owners. But when illegal items such as unlicensed firearms or drugs are illegally obtained,
the commission of the offense, or the accused was aided in the commission of the crime it is kept in custodia legis or in custody of law. They are inadmissible as evidence in court,
in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him, there is no instigation and but since they are prohibited items under law, the person who was in custody of such was
the accused must be convicted. The law in fact tolerates the use of decoys and other not the legal owner, and the items must be confiscated by law.
artifices to catch a criminal.
Warrant of Arrest a written order made on behalf of the state and is based upon a
Search Warrant an order in writing issued in the name of the Republic signed by a complaint issued pursuant to a statute or rule and which command law enforcement to
judged and directed to a peace officer commanding him to search for personal property arrest a person and bring him before a court.
described therein and bring it before the court. SEARCH WARRANT WARRANT OF ARREST
The applicant must show: The applicant must show
In search cases, two conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence: 1.) That the items sought are in 1.) Probable cause that an offense
1. that the items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with fact seizable by virtue of being has been committed.
criminal activity, and connected with criminal 2.) That the person to be arrested
2. that the items will be found in the place to be searched. It is not also necessary activity; and committed it.
that a particular person be implicated. (Webb v. De Leon) 2.) That the items will be found in
the place to be searched.
A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of: The judge must conduct a The judge need not conduct a
1. property subject of the offense personal, searching personal examination of the
2. property stolen or embezzled and proceeds/fruits of the offense examination of the applicant applicant and witnesses. He
3. property used or intended to be used as the mans of committing an offense and his witnesses. may rely on the affidavits of
the witnesses and the
Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, does not require that the property to be seized recommendation of the
should be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. It may or prosecutor.
may not be owned by him. In fact, under subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section 2, Prescription: 10 days Prescription: until served.
one of the properties that may be seized is stolen property. Necessarily, stolen property

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- If for some reason, a search was not completed on the first day it was undertaken, such cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. [NOTE: need not point to a specific
as the voluptuousness of the material to be seized, the search on the 2nd day is deemed a offense] (Webb v. De Leon)
continuation of the original search. The search may be performed any day within the 10-
day prescriptive period. (Mustang Lumber) The testimonies of the two witnesses, coupled with the object and documentary evidence
they presented, are sufficient to establish the existence of probable cause. The
It is only the Judge who may issue warrants of search and arrest. Mayors may not determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of
exercise this power, nor may it be done by a mere prosecuting body. The one exception proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. (Microsoft v.
to this rule is the deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, which arrest may be issued Maxicorp)
or ordered by the President or the Commission of Immigration. (Salazar v. Achacoso)
Probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The
Commissioner of Immigration cannot issue warrants of arrest in aid merely of his prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards
investigatory power. However, he may order the arrest of an alien in order to carry out a of judgment are that of reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge
deportation order that has already become final. (Board of Commissioners v. Dela after a full-blown trial. (Microsoft v. Maxicorp)
For purposes of issuing a warrant, only a judge can determine probable cause. For
An issuing magistrate must meet 2 requirements: he must be neutral and detached and purposes of filing an information, the prosecution determines probable cause.
must be capable of determining whether probable cause exists. Determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is an executive
function. (People v. CA)
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the foregoing constitutional Sufficiency of Affidavit
and statutory provisions. These requirements are: When the Affidavit of the applicant of the complaint contains sufficient facts within his
(1) the warrant must be issued upon probable cause; personal and direct knowledge, it is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exist
(2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant probable cause; when the applicant's knowledge of the facts is mere hearsay, the
or any other person; affidavit of one or more witnesses having a personal knowledge of the fact is necessary.
(3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or (Alvarez v. CFI)
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
(4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or Prosecutors Certification
things to be seized. (Uy v. BIR) The judge may rely upon the fiscal's certification of the existence of probable cause and,
on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest. But such certification does not bind the
1)Probable Cause such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will judge. The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function; it calls for the
warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate. Section 6, Rule 112 of
it, are legally just and proper. DETERMINED BY THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. the Rules of Court provide that: If on the face of the information the judge finds no
- It must be probable cause of something specific (Stonehill vs. Dlokno) probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals certification and require the submission of
- It must be defined In relation to the action which It justifies the affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a
- Mere conclusions of law do not establish probable cause (Corro vs. Lising, Burgos vs. probable cause. (Placer v. Villanueva)
Chief of Staff)
Probable cause for an arrest facts and circumstances which would lead a By itself the prosecutors certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the reports,
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been affidavits and other supporting documents behind the prosecutors certification which are
committed by the person sought to be arrested. material to assisting the judge in making his determination. The extent of the Judge's
personal examination of the report and its annexes depends on the circumstances of each
Probable cause for a search facts and circumstances which would lead a case. The personal determination is vested in the Judge by the Constitution. It can be as
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been brief or as detailed as the circumstances of each case require. (Lim Sr. v. Felix)
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched. - Judges must NOT rely solely on the report of the prosecutor- they must evaluate the
-It also demands that no less than personal knowledge by the complainant or his report and the supporting documents which may consist of affidavits, transcripts, and all
witnesses of the facts upon the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. (20th other supporting documents behind the prosecutors certification (Roberts v. CA)
Century Fox film Corp. v. CA, Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff, Corro v. Lising; 2) Personal Examination of the Judge
originally from Henry v. US 1959)
Under existing laws, warrants of arrest may be issued:
- Probable Cause need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on (1) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs) except those in the National Capital Region,
evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and definitely not on evidence Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) in cases falling
establishing absolute certainty of guilt. Before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely within their exclusive original jurisdiction;
determine personally the probability, not the certainty of guilt of an accused. In doing so, - in cases covered by the rule on summary procedure where the accused fails to appear
judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. when required;
They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable - and in cases filed with them which are cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
warrant can issue: only if the judge is satisfied after an examination in writing and Examination of complainant must be in the form of searching questions and answers in
under oath of the complainant and the witnesses, in the form of searching questions and order to determine the existence of probable cause. (Silva v. RTC Negros)
answers, that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the
respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. The reading of the stenographic notes to respondent Judge did not constitute sufficient
compliance with the constitutional mandate of personal examination for by that manner
- Probable cause is PERSONALLY DETERMINED by the judge after examination under oath respondent Judge did not have the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
or affirmation of the complainant/applicant and all witnesses who have personal complainant and his witness. These were important in arriving at a sound inference on
knowledge of the offense under oath and in writing. (Allado v. Diokno) the question of w/n there was probable cause. (Bache & Co. Inc v. Ruiz)

(2) by the Metropolitan Trial Courts in the National Capital Region (MeTCs-NCR) and the Personal Examination of Evidence:
RTCs in cases filed with them after appropriate preliminary investigations conducted by The presentation of the master tapes of the copyrighted films from which the pirated films
officers authorized to do so other than judges of MeTCs, MTCs and MCTCs. were allegedly copied, was necessary for the validity of search warrants against those
who have in their possession the pirated films. This linkage of the copyrighted films to the
Under these courts, it has been held that: The judge is not required to Spersonally pirated films must be established to satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Mere
examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following Seaestablished doctrine and allegations as to the existence of the copyrighted films cannot serve as basis for the
procedure, he shall issuance of a search warrant. (20th Century Fox Film v. CA)
1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue 3) Examined under Oath and Affirmation
a warrant of arrest; or
2. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may Searching Questions:
a. disregard the fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting Warrant issued will be declared VOID if the judge does not ask SEARCHING QUESTIONS,
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the and merely asks cursory questions that mirror the application filed by the complainant or
existence of probable cause, OR witness, such as:
b. personally examine the applicant and witnesses to determine probable o Questions that are simple yes or no questions pertaining to basic
cause. (Soliven v. Makasiar, Roberts v. CA) matters like identity and things to be seized, already contained in the
application for search warrant filed.
The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses and o Questions that are routinary and very broad. (Silva v. Presiding
on the basis thereof issue a warrant of arrest. He may also rely on the fiscals report or if Judge of RTC of Negros Occidental)
on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause he may disregard the fiscals report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a Oath- an outward pledge, given by person taking it, that his attestation or promise is
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. (Soliven v. Makasiar) But it may not be made under immediate sense of responsibility to God. (Alvarez vs. CFI)
delegated to a clerk (Bache v. Ruiz) Affirmation- a solemn and formal declaration that an affidavit is true, this being
substituted for an oath in certain cases. Here, there is no invocation of God or a supreme
What is required is personal determination and not personal examination. (Soliven v. being.
Judge Makasiar)
**Bernas recommends comparing the doctrine from Soliven with the doctrine from Bache A search warrant must not only be based on probable cause but also must be based on
and Co. v. Ruiz an application supported by oath of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce. Its
purpose is to convince the committing magistrate of the existence of probable cause.
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. (Soliven v. Judge The failure of the witness to mention particular individuals does not necessarily prove that
Makasiar) he had no personal knowledge of specific illegal transactions of the Organization, for the
witness might be acquainted with specific transactions, even if the names of the
The judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses under oath or affirmation. individuals concerned were unknown to him. (Central Bank v. Morfe)
This has been interpreted as requiring a personal and not merely delegated examination
by the judge or by the proper officer, because the purpose of the examination is to The examining judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the
convince the judge or officer himself and not any other individual. (Bache and Co. v. witnesses he may produce and to attach them to the record. Such written deposition is
Ruiz; Alvarez v. Court) necessary in order that the judge may be able to properly determine the existence or
non-existence of probable cause, and to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will
A judge cannot rely solely on the certification or recommendation of a prosecutor that be found later that his declarations are false. (People v. Mamaril)
probable cause exists for the purpose of issuing a warrant. By itself, the Prosecutors
certification of probable cause is ineffectual. The judge must look at the report, the 4) Particularity of Description
affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes (if any) and all other supporting - A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the
documents behind the Prosecutors certification. (Lim v. Felix) description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow and by which
the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure. (Bache & Co. v.
Test of Sufficiency whether it had been drawn in such a manner that perjury could be Ruiz)
charged if such is untrue.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- Section 1, paragraphs 3, of Article III of the Constitution, and section 97 of General premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant.
Orders, No. 58 provide that the affidavit to be presented, which shall serve as the basis The controlling subject of search warrants is the place indicated in the warrant itself, and
for determining whether probable cause exist and whether the warrant should be issued, not the place identified by the police. (People v. Francisco)
must contain a particular description of the place to be searched and the person or thing
to be seized. These provisions are mandatory and must be strictly complied. (Alvarez v. Typographical Error- in warrant is allowed if the description of the place to be searched
CFI) It must NOT be too general. (Stonehill v. Diokno) can be distinguished from other places, but will not be allowed if it is based on the whims
or discretion of the peace officer.
The purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to only those
particularly described in the search warrant to leave the officers of the law with no Search of a House- 2 witnesses are required to be present in the search of the house,
discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable unless its lawful occupants are in the premises searched.
searches and seizures, or abuses, may not be committed. (Corro v. Lising)
-If in a warrant for a search of the place there is a mistake in the identification of the
Purpose or this requirement is to prevent abuse by the officer enforcing the warrant by owner, the warrant is not invalidated if it is properly described. (Frank Uy v. BIR)
leaving him with no discretion as to who or what to search or seize. (Bernas)
c. As to People
It is not required that technical precision of description be required, particularly where, by John Doe warrants
the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, since the As a general rule, warrants must have a name and description of the accused. The
requirement of a technical description would mean that no warrant could issue. (People police should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to be
v. Tee) seized whenever and wherever it is feasible. Warrants for apprehension of unidentified
persons are void, unless it contains the best decriptio personae possible that will enable
a. As to Objects Seized the officer to identify the accused.
- It must be specific as far as the circumstances will ordinarily allow. (Microsoft v.
Maxicorp) It is not required that a technical description be given because that would However, John Doe Warrants should be the exception and not the rule. The descriptio
mean that NO warrant could issue. (Alvarez v. CFI) personae must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon whom the warrant
is to be served.
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when:
a. the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow, It should state: personal appearance, peculiarities, occupation, place of residence and
b. or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact- not of law- by which the other circumstances by which he may be identified. Having the address and the knowing
warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure. that the one responsible occupies and controls the building is sufficient information to
c. or when the things described are limited to those, which bear direct relation to acquire a search warrant. (People v. Veloso)
the offense for which the warrant is being issued. (Bache & Co. Inc. v. Ruiz)
A warrant of arrest against 50 John Does is of the nature of a general warrant clearly
- As to what is to be taken, nothing is left to the discretion of the officer executing the violative at least of the requirement of particularity of description. (Pangandaman v.
warrant. Thus, the specific property to be searched for should be so particularly described Casar)
as to preclude any possibility of seizing any other property. BUT, the law does not require
that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no 5) Warrant must not be for more than ONE offense
room for doubt on the part of searching authorities.(Vallejo v. CA) - A search warrant shall not be issued but upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense. (Stonehill v. Diokno)
- The articles subject of the search and seizure need not be so invariant as to require
absolute concordance between those seized and those described in the warrant. D. Three Types of Searches
Substantial similarity of those articles described as a class or species would suffice. 1. Criminal Search requires probable cause.
(Yousef Al-Ghoul v. CA) 2. Constructive Search-(such as Subpoena duces tecum) order for the
production of books and papers. Upon motion of any party showing good cause
b. As to description of Premises and upon notice to all other parties, the court may order to produce and permit
- It is a sufficient description if officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, inspection and copying or photographing of documents not privilege which
ascertain and identify the place intended, and distinguish it from other places in the contain evidence material to any matter involved in the action (Material
community. Distributors v. Natividad)
3. Administrative search conducted to impose a regulation or law. Probable cause
- In the determination of whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched is determined according to the law being implemented. If there is no consent,
with sufficient particularity, it has been held "that the executing officer's prior knowledge one should get a warrant (Camara v. Municipal Court)
as to the place intended in the warrant is relevant. The executing officer may look to the
affidavit in the official court file to resolve an ambiguity in the warrant as to the place to BUT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT:
be searched." (Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff) The RULES OF PROCEDURE are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice
- The particularity of the place is essential to the issuance of search warrants to avoid the and that strict and rigid application of rules which would result in technicalities that tend
exercise of the enforcing officers of discretion. The place to be searched as set out in the to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice must always be avoided.
warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers own personal knowledge of the (Vallejo v. CA)

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
HENCE Warrantless search of the accused personal effects is valid because of the existence of
B. Valid Warrantless Searches and Seizure probable cause: the smell of marijuana that emanated from his plastic bag, intelligence
NOTE: Look at the exigency of the situation, also, look at the item sought to be seized, reports of a Caucasian travelling on a bus smuggling marijuana from Sagada, and when
if it is one that is prohibited by law. he was acting suspiciously and attempted to flee when asked to present his identification
papers during a routine check conducted by NARCOM officers on the bus he was riding.
In the extraordinary events where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search or (People v. Malmstedt)
seizure, or when the latter cannot be performed except without warrant, what constitutes
a reasonable or unreasonable search or seizure becomes purely a judicial question, A warrantless search on a petitioner operating and selling timber when his business
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of permit was suspended by the DENR is valid because he had no right to possess, sell or
the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which dispose of lumber pursuant to PD 705. The DENR is authorized to seize his lumber.
the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched and the character of the (Mustang Lumber v. CA)
articles procured. (People v. CFI of Rizal)
2) Seizure of evidence in plain view
A search warrant issued by a judge based on a mere affidavit of a Philippine Constabulary Requirements:
officer who did not have personal knowledge but relied on the statements off witnesses is 1) Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
invalid. A search warrant must not be issued based on mere hearsay. The judge must not present in the pursuit of their official duty.
just rehash the statements but must examine them closely and ascertain the existence of 2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be
a probable cause. (Roan v. Gonzales) there.
3) The evidence must be immediately apparent
The exclusionary rule 4) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search (People vs.
The Bill of Rights orders the absolute exclusion of illegally obtained evidence. Section 3 Valdez)
explicitly states that illegally obtained evidence shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding. Articles seized based on an invalid warrant may not be introduced as Aside from a search incident to a lawful arrest, a warrantless search had been upheld in
evidence in court. (Nolasco v. Pao) cases of moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view, as well as the search
**Take note that this defense is purely personal. conducted at police or military checkpoints which we declared are not illegal per se, and
stressed that the warrantless search is not violative of the Constitution for as long as the
1) Search incidental to a lawful arrest vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the
inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual search. (Aniag v. Comelec)
1. Search was conducted because of a valid arrest (if arrest warrant is declared An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to if the officers
illegal or invalid, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine excludes them from conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that
being admitted into evidence) either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find the instrumentality or
2. Item to be searched was within the arrestees custody or area of immediate evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched. The
control (the area within which the person arrested could reach for a weapon or existence of probable cause justifying the warrantless search is determined by the facts of
evidence to destroy it). each case. Absent such justifying circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of
3. Search was contemporaneous with arrest. petitioner the search could not be valid. The action then of the policemen unreasonably
- Arrest must precede that search; the process cannot be reversed (Malacat vs. intruded into petitioner's privacy and the security of his property. (Aniag v. Comelec)
3) Search of a moving vehicle
Exception: A search substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest -The important thing is that there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search.
if the police have probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search (People (Caballes vs. CA)
vs. Tudtud citing 68 Am.Jur 2d) - Or search is conducted in exceptional circumstances (i.e. checkpoints) (Valmonte vs. de
Accused was searched and arrested while transporting hashish. A crime was actually Searches and seizures without warrant are valid if made upon probable cause, that is,
being committed and he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, a search made upon his upon a belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an
personal effects was incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest. (People v. Malmstedt) automobile or other vehicle contains that which by law is subject to seizure and
destruction. (Carroll v. United States)
** Note: Posadas v. CA said that such an instance might not fall under search
incidental to lawful warrantless arrest. When it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can quickly move out
** At the time the peace officers identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought, then a search warrant
he tried to flee, they did not know that he had committed, or was actually committing the is not necessary so long as the seizing officer authority truly believed that there is
offense of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. They just suspected that he probable cause. (People v. CFI of Rizal, People v. Lo Ho Wing)
was hiding something in the buri bag. They did not know what its contents were. The said
circumstances did not justify an arrest without a warrant. (People v. Posadas, SC only The rules governing search and seizure of a moving vehicle have steadily liberalized on
disagreed with the SolGens reasoning why the search was valid, but nevertheless ruled the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant could be
that it was indeed a valid warrantless search for different reasons. See Stop-and-Frisk) obtained, the place, things and persons to be searched must be described to

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
the satisfaction of the issuing judgea requirement which borders on the impossible in - When a person gives his consent to be searched, he waives his right against warrantless
the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport searches and seizures. (People v. Lacerna)
contraband from one place to another with impunity. (People v. Lo Ho Wing)
The apprehending officers even sought the permission of petitioner to search the car, to
It is quite true the RASAC received one such information several days or a week before which the latter agreed. As such, since the shabu was discovered by virtue of a valid
the encounter; but the fact that its agents failed to obtain a warrant in spite of the time warrantless search and the petitioner himself freely gave his consent to said search, the
allowance is not a sign that they have been remiss in their duty. Because they lacked the prohibited drugs found as a result were admissible in evidence. (Asuncion v. CA)
necessary information (such as the exact time/place where the search should be made),
RASAC could not have possibly secured a valid warrant even if they had foreseen its The right against warrantless searches and seizures is a purely personal right, as such,
compelling necessity. (People v. CFI of Rizal) nobody else should be able to waive the right for the accused.
**However in Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs where a woman identified herself as the
The prevalent circumstances of the case undoubtedly bear out the fact that the search in wife of the occupant and gave consent to the search and voluntarily surrendered papers
question was made as regards a moving vehicle petitioner's vehicle was "flagged of the absent occupant but turned out to be a mere manicurist, the SC held that The
down" by the apprehending officers upon identification. Therefore, the police authorities officers of the law cannot be blamed if they act on appearances. There was a person
were justified in searching the petitioner's automobile without a warrant since the inside who from indications was ready to accede to their request. Even ordinary courtesy
situation demanded immediate action. (Asuncion v. CA) would preclude them from inquiring too closely as to why she was there.

First of all, even though the police authorities already identified the petitioner as an 5) Customs Searches- Made by a customs officer or one deputized by customs. The
alleged shabu dealer and confirmed the area where he allegedly was plying his illegal mere fact that a person in possession of an item, which duties assigned to it have NOT
trade, they were uncertain as to the time he would show up in the vicinity. Secondly, they been paid, justifies the warrantless search; the item is considered Government Property
were uncertain as to the type of vehicle petitioner would be in, taking into account because import duties have not been paid with prejudice to the Government.
reports that petitioner used different cars in going to and from the area. Finally, there
was probable cause as the same police officers had a previous encounter with the - Imported goods remain under the jurisdiction of Bureau of Customs as Importation Is
petitioner, who was then able to evade arrest. not terminated. (Tariff and Customs Code). BOC acquires exclusive jurisdiction over
imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of customs laws, from the moment the
When the vehicle was pointed to them by their confidential informant, with the goods are actually in its possession or control. (Papa vs. Mago)
information that the occupant thereof was carrying shabu, the operatives had to act
quickly. Otherwise, they would again lose their subject whom they reasonably believed to The right against warrantless searches is automatically waived in accordance with
be committing a crime at that instance. There would be no more time for them to secure customs rules and regulations, which is strictly observed in international practice. The
a search search in an airport is made pursuant to routine airport security procedure, allowed under
warrant (People v. Asuncion, moreover in this case, accused gave his permission for his Sec. 9 of RA 6235 states: any holder of an airline ticket and his baggage are subject to
car to be searched) search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances. Passengers refusing the
search shall not be allowed to board. Once searched, and found to have illegal materials
Requirements for Checkpoints: on them, a person is caught in flagrante delicto, which means he or she can be lawfully
(1) Existence of exceptional circumstances arrested without a warrant. (People v. Canton)
(2) conducted on a fixed area
(3) inspection limited to visual search 6) Stop and Frisk rule
(4) occupants not subjected to physical or body search (Caballes vs. CA) The purpose of the rule:
(a) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection and
Checkpoints need not be announced because it would be impractical, and it would (b) the pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the officer to take
forewarn those who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of legitimacy of steps to assure himself that the person is not armed that may be used against him.
checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized manner in (Malacat v. CA)
which they are operated. (People v. Escao)
Terry Stop- The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when
4) Upon waiver of right there must be a right which the person has knowledge of and a police officer stops a suspect on the street and searches him without probable cause to
such had intentionally relinquished arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is
committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Requirements for effective waiver of rights:
(1) It must appear that the right exists For their own protection, the police may perform a quick surface search of the persons
(2) The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive of the existence of such outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is
right. armed. Reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts.
(3) Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
(4) It must be understood to cover only what is included within the terms of the language While probable cause is not required to conduct a "stop and frisk," it nevertheless holds
(Veroy vs. Layague) that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a "stop and frisk." A genuine reason

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
must exist, in light of the police officer's experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. (Terry v. But in the erroneous hypothesis that the production and inspection of books and
Ohio, cited in Malacat v. CA) documents of a company ordered by the Court is tantamount to a search warrant, the
procedure outlined by Rule 21 and followed by a judge place them outside the realm of
Rule for Stop and Frisk: the prohibited unreasonable searches.
1. Police officer observes unusual conduct
2. Reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in some type of criminal If a party in a case has interest in the books and documents in question, then it means
activity. that they are material and important to the issues of the case, and that justice will be
3. Identifies himself as a policeman upon approach. better served if all the facts pertinent to the controversy are placed before the trial court.
4. Makes reasonable inquiries (Material Distributors v. Natividad)
5. Reasonable fear for his own or others safety
Subpoena Duces Tecum
**The petitioner was acting suspiciously, and when the INP officers approached him and The right against unreasonable searches and seizure guards against abuse only by way of
identified themselves, the accused tried to flee with his buri bag, there was probable too much indefiniteness or breadth in the things required to be particularly described; if
cause that he was concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty the inquiry is one the demanding agency (Congress/Admin. Body) is authorized by law to
of the police officers to inspect the same. (Posadas v. CA) make and the materials specified are relevant, the gist of the protection being the
requirement that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable.
7) Exigent and Emergency circumstances urgency and exigency of the moment
dispenses the need for warrants The requirement of probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, literally applicable
in case of a warrant, is satisfied in case of an Order for Production (Subpoena Duces
8) *new* suspicionless drug test Tecum) by the Courts determination that the investigation is authorized by Congress for
Sec. 36 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR), as couched, contain a purpose it can order, and that the documents sought are relevant to the inquiry.
provisions specifically directed towards preventing a situation that would unduly (Oklahoma Press v. Walling)
embarrass the employees or place them under a humiliating experience. While every
officer and employee in a private establishment is under the law deemed forewarned that Administrative Inspection
he or she may be a possible subject of a drug test, nobody is really singled out in Probable cause upon the basis of which warrants are to be issued for area code
advance for drug testing. The random drug testing shall be undertaken under conditions enforcement inspections is not dependent on the inspectors belief that a particular
calculated to protect as much as possible the employee's privacy and dignity. The dwelling violates the elements of the code, but on the reasonableness of the enforcement
intrusion into the employees' privacy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper agencys appraisal of conditions in the area as a whole. In nonemergency situations, a
safeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages of test results, and is relatively person has the right to insist that the inspectors obtain a search warrant. (Camara v.
minimal. Municipal Court)
**The probable-cause standard is peculiarly related to criminal investigations and may be
unsuited to determining the reasonableness of administrative searches where the FREEDOM FROM ARREST
Government seeks to prevent the development of hazardous conditions. The American Exception: If arrest is reasonable
Court has held that a warrant and finding of probable cause are unnecessary in the public
school context because such requirements would unduly interfere with the maintenance With Warrant Without Warrant
of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed. (Veronia Sch Dist. V. Acton;
Board of Education v. Earls: in justifying the reasonableness of warrantless drug tests Requirements: Rule 113, Sec 5 Rules of
in public schools) (1) Issued upon probable Court:
cause (a) When in his presence, the
Remedy for a wrongful seizure (2) Personally examined by person to bearrested has
Art 3, sec 2 protects not only those who appear to be innocent but also those who appear the judge committed, Is actually
to be guilty but are nevertheless presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. (MHP (3) Examined under oath and committing, or attemptingto
Garments v. CA) affirmation commit an offense (in
(4) Particularly describing the flagrante delicto);
In the case at bar, the seizure was made without any warrant. The evidence did not place to be searched and the
justify the warrantless search and seizure of the respondents goods. The petitioners and persons or things to be seized. (b) When an offense has in
the raiding party had enough time to apply for a judicial warrant but they did not do so, (Section 2, ArticleIII) fact been committed and he
and thus took thus took the risk of a suit for damages. There was no probable cause for (5) warrant must not be for haspersonal knowledge of
the seizure. The wantonness of the wrongful seizure justifies the award of exemplary more than one offense facts Indicating that the
damages. (MHP Garments v. CA) (Revised Rules of Court) person to bearrested has
committed it;
Searches and Seizures of whatever nature and for whatever purpose No Fiscal (judge personally
When an order is issued in virtue of the provisions of Rule 21, it pertains to a civil investigates) (c) When the person to be
procedure which cannot be identified or confused with the unreasonable searches - Municipal trial court arrested is a prisoner who
prohibited by the Constitution. - Municipal circuit trial court hasescaped from a penal

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
-Metropolitan circuit court establishment or place where - One of the Constitutional requirements for a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest is
(non-NRC) he is: - Serving final that it must be based on probable cause. The existence of probable cause justifies the
judgment or arrest and seizure without warrant. This constitutes personal knowledge under Rule 113
With Fiscal, (judge looks into - Temporarily confined while of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
certification + examines the case ispending, or
records): - Escaped while being That petitioners were not caught in the act does not make the arrest illegal. Petitioners
- Fiscal makes a determination transferred from were found with young boys in their respective rooms, in some cases naked. Under the
of probable cause (called oneconfinement to another. circumstances, the CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had
"certification") committed pedophilia. (Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago)
- Judge looks Into the
certification (must include - In the case at bar, police observed during their surveillance that the petitioner, having
affidavits) red eyes and wobbling, as he walked near the Kalookan City Cemetery, which according
- Judge personally examines to their information was a hangout of drug addicts. According to their experience, this
the records suspicious behavior was characteristic of drug addicts on a high. The police therefore
-Judge is not bound by the had reason to investigate him. They approached the petitioner, identified themselves as
Fiscal's determination. police, and asked what he was holding. When he resisted they asked him again. It was
only then when he allowed the examination of his wallet where the alleged marijuana was
C. Valid Warrantless Arrest found.
In Flagrante Delicto
- An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer, when the NOTE: Illegality of arrest may be cured when accused voluntarily submitted to the
officer SEES the offense, although at a distance, or HEARS the disturbances created jurisdiction of the court by pleading not guilty without questioning the illegality of his
thereby and PROCEEDED AT ONCE to the scene thereof (US vs. Samonte) arrest. (People vs. Escordial)

Buy-bust operation/ Entrapment operations flagrante delicto rule - Petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of evidence illegally obtained when he
Continuing crime flagrante delicto rule failed to raise the issue during trial. Issues not raised during trial cannot be pleaded for
" Validity of arrest may be challenged before he enters his plea. The accused may the first time on appeal. (Manalili v. CA)
move to quash the information before arraignment.
Effect of bail- If one posts bail, one is estopped from questioning defects of ones arrest
Continuing Offenses- Subversion being a continuing offense, the arrest of the accused (Velasco v. CA)
without a warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when
arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such - The filing of the petitioners of a petition to be released on bail should be considered as a
crimes in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith constitute direct assaults against waiver of any irregularity attending their arrest and estoppes them from questioning its
the state and are in the nature of continuing crimes. AS such, there is no need for a validity. (Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago)
warrant in order to make an arrest for those committing such crimes. (Umil v. Ramos)
- The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation is waived ONLY when the accused
- The Court does not believe that the warrantless arrest of Go falls within the terms of fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at the arraignment. Go was
lawful warrantless arrest of Sec. 5(a): When IN HIS PRESENCE, the person to be persistent on his right to preliminary investigation BEFORE his arraignment (Go v. CA)
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
His arrest took place 6 days after the shooting. Neither could the arrest be reasonably G. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine and Free to Go Rule
regarded as effected When in fact just been committed. Moreover Umil v. Ramos does - The arrest was done while accused was simply descending the gangplank of a ship, with
NOT apply because Murder is NOT a continuing crime. (Go v. CA) no outward indication that called for his arrest. He is NOT committing a crime, nor about
to do so, nor just committed one. Therefore this doesnt fall under the exceptions stated
- Par. (a) requires that the person be arrested: (1) after he has committed or while he is in Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
actually committing or at least attempting to commit an offense, (2) in the presence of
the arresting officer. The evidence is inadmissible because the search was NOT an incident of a lawful arrest
because there was NO warrant of arrest and the warrantless arrest didnt fall under the
These requirements have not been established in the case at bar. At the time of the exceptions under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. If a peace officer has at least 2 days to
arrest, accused-appellant was merely looking from side to side and holding his procure a Search/Arrest warrant with the name, description of the person to be arrested
abdomen, according to the arresting officers themselves. There was apparently no or the place to be searched, he cannot just make a warrantless arrest or search. (People
offense that had just been committed, or was being actually committed or at least being v. Amminudin)
attempted in their presence. Without the evidence of the firearm taken from accused at
the time of his illegal arrest the prosecution lost its most important exhibit and must - The accused was arrested on the sole basis of information from a verbal report, which
therefore fail. (People v. Mengote) does not fall under the exceptions stated in Rules 113. There is NO such personal
knowledge in this case. The verbal report led the authorities to suspect that the accused
Personal Knowledge

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
had committed a crime. They were still fishing for evidence of a crime not yet Privacy of Communication with regard to Telephone Conversations
ascertained. The subsequent recovery of the subject firearm on the basis of information Unauthorized tape recordings of telephone conversations are not admissible as evidence.
from the lips of a frightened wife cannot make the arrest lawful. Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversation allowed the
recordings of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under RA
If an arrest without a warrant is unlawful at the time it was made, generally nothing that 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law). Tape recordings can only be made upon lawful order of the
happened or was discovered afterwards can make it lawful. The fruit of a poisonous tree Court. (Salcedo-Ortaez vs. CA)
is necessarily also tainted. The Constitution itself mandates that any evidence obtained in
violation of the right is inadmissible in evidence. Consequently, testimonies of the C. Prohibition
arresting officers as to the admissions made by the appellant cannot be used against him. " Not absolute. The state may infringe such by applying for a previous judicial
(People v. Burgos) authorization in cases of national security or non-judicially when required by public
safety, public order or otherwise prescribed by law.
(1) Privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful Purpose: Protection against the State. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship
order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law between the individual and the State. Its concern is not the relation between individuals,
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be between a private individual and other private individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.
Fr. Bernas during the Constitutional Commission.
1. Lawful order of the Court NOTE: If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must first
2. When Public Safety or Order requires it as prescribed by law. generally be secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, if the search is
made at the behest or the initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment for its
A. Exclusionary Rule own private purposes, without the intervention of police authorities, the right against
" Bars admission of illegally obtained evidence. unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked, for only the act of the private
individual and not the law enforcers are involved.
Restraint against unlawful searches and seizures applies only against the government but
not on private individuals. If the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered Right to Privacy in terms of a Statute infringing on the Individual
and obtained by a private person, acting in a private capacity and without The right to privacy does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right merely
participation/intervention of State authorities, then the liberties guaranteed by the requires that the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justifies such
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper safeguards and well-
Test: defined standards to prevent unconstitutional invasions. Any law or order that invades
1. Evidence primarily discovered and obtained by private person (subsequent individual privacy will be subjected by the Judiciary to strict certainty.
verification of evidence by State authorities upon request of private individual is
allowed). Requisites for a Law to intrude upon privacy of an Individual:
2. Private person acted in private capacity. 1. Law is narrowly focused
3. No intervention and participation by the State authorities in primary 2. A compelling interest justifies intrusion
discovery.(People v. Marti) 3. Proper safeguards
4. Well-defined standards
BUT (Ople v. Torres and KMU v. NEDA)
The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence
[to be] inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself WAIVER OF RIGHTS under Sec. 2 and 3
aggrieved by her husbands infidelity) who is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if Illegal Possession of Firearms- The Constitutional Immunity from unreasonable
there is a lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, searches and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the
as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. behalf.
The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the
drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of Records show that the appellant was not at the house at the time his alleged helper,
marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his allowed the authorities to enter it. We find no evidence that would establish the fact that
right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him Luz Morados was indeed the appellants helper, or if she was the helper, that the
or to her. (Zulueta v. CA) appellant had given her authority to open his house in his absence. (People v. Damaso)

B. Anti-wiretapping Law The case does not fall within the exceptions to warrantless search.
" RA 4200 requires previously written judicial authorization to be issued upon The reason for searching the house of herein petitioners is that it was reportedly being
fulfillment of requirements for the issuance of a warrant effective for only 60 days. used as a hideout and recruitment center for rebel soldiers. Permission was indeed
granted by Ma. Luisa Veroy to enter the house but only to ascertain the
presence of rebel soldiers.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- The Boards of Review for Moving Pictures and Television has the power to screen review
Under the circumstances it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to and examine all television programs. The exercise of religious freedom can be regulated
procure a search warrant but did not. The articles seized, having been confiscated by the state when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some substantial
illegally, are protected by the exclusionary principle and cannot be used as evidence evil, which the state is duty bound to prevent. However, there is no showing of the type
against the petitioners in the criminal action against them for illegal possession of of harm the tapes will bring. Prior restraint on speech cannot be justified by hypothetical
firearms. (Sps. Veroy v. Layague) fears but only by the showing of a SUBSTANTIVE and IMMINENT EVIL. (INC v. CA)
NOTE: The test is still applied to 4 types of speech:
SECTION 4: No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of 1) speech that advocates dangerous ideas;
the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government 2) speech that provokes a hostile audience reaction;
for redress of grievances. 3) out of court contempt; &
4) release of information that endangers a fair trial.
A. Prior Restraint
" Official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in Freedom of the Press- The press is not exempt from the taxing powers of the state, the
advance of actual publication or dissemination like licensing or censorship. law granted the press a privilege, they could take back such a privilege any time. In
- Censorship or prior restraint is done by suppressing publication and punishing as withdrawing the privilege, the law merely subjects the press to the same tax burden to
contempt further publication. In determining the extent of constitutional protection, it has which other businesses have ling ago been subjected, The VAT is not a license tax and
been generally, If not universally considered that it is the chief purpose of the guaranty of therefore, not a form of prior restraint. It is not a tax on the exercise if the privilege,
freedom of press is to prevent previous restraints of publication. (Near v. Minnesota) much less a constitutional right. (Tolentino v. Sec. Of Finance)

Examples are: TV coverage of Criminal Trial

1. system of licensing administered by an executive officer Freedom of press and right to public information versus rights of the accused versus
2. movie censorship- Movies are vehicle not just for entertainment but also for power of court to control proceedings -the rights of the accused must prevail, therefore, it
communication may be prohibited
3. judicial prior restraint in the form of an injunction order
B. Subsequent Punishment
The prior restraint principle is not an unbending rule but admitted exceptions such as: W- " There are limits to the power of the government to impose rules or regulations
O-I penalizing the exercise of the right of freedom of expression
1. when a nation is at war, publication which may obstruct government
recruitment Tests for determining the validity of curtailment of speech: (these do not apply
2. publication of obscene materials only to freedom of speech and press, but also to other preferred freedoms: freedom of
3. materials inciting to acts of violence to overthrow the government association, right of assembly and petition, freedom of religion)
Also: seditious speech, censorship, electoral process 1. Dangerous Tendency Rule This means that speech may be curtailed or punished
when it creates a dangerous tendency to produce a certain evil which the State has the
Presumption of Invalidity- Any system of prior restraints of expression bears a heavy right to prevent. An example is if the content of the speech or expression tends to stir
presumption against its constitutional validity. The Government thus carries the burden of rebellious sentiments against the government, or to commit crimes.
showing justification for the enforcement of such restraint. (NY Times v. US) All it requires, for speech to be punishable, is that there be a rational connection between
the speech and the evil sought to be avoided.
Movie Censorship Process- Non-criminal process, which requires the prior submission NOTE: The fear must be for evil that is serious, imminent and which has a high
of a film to a censor, avoids constitutional infirmity only if it takes place under procedural probability of serious injury to the state
safeguards designed to obviate the dangers of a censorship system. - The attack on Governor-General Wood exceeds the bounds of free speech and
common decency. There was a seditious tendency, which could easily produce
STANDARD FOR CENSORSHIP TO BE VALID: B-F-P disaffection among the people. This case is an example of the application of the
1. The burden of proving that the film is unprotected expression must rest on dangerous tendency rule where all it requires, for speech to be punishable is that
the censor. there is a rational connection between speech and evil apprehended. (People v.
2. While the State may require advance submission of all films, in order to proceed Perez)
effectively to bar all showings of unprotected films, the requirement cannot be 2. Clear and Present Danger Rule It means that the speech and expression used are
administered in a manner which would lend an effect of finality to the censor's used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
determination whether a film constitutes a protected expression because only a danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the State has a right to
judicial determination in an adversary proceeding ensures the necessary prevent. Compared to the dangerous tendency rule, the clear and present danger test
sensitivity to freedom of expression-only a procedure requiring a judicial requires a greater level of proximity and degree between the speech and the evil sought
determination suffices to impose a valid final restraint. to be avoided.
3. The procedure must also assure a prompt final judicial decision to minimize the - In determining whether a circumstance would constitute clear and present
deterrent effect of an interim and possibly erroneous denial of a license. danger, the court must inquire whether in each case the gravity of the evil,
(Freedman vs. Maryland) discounted by its improbability, justifies an invasion of free speech to avoid the

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such C. Speech and the Electoral Process
circumstances and are of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that COMELEC
they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It The COMELEC has NOT been granted the right to supervise and regulate the exercise by
is a question of proximity and degree. Clear and present danger is not dependent media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods.
on the probability of success of attempted overthrow (Dennis v. US) There are no candidates involved in a plebiscite, therefore the evil sought to be prevented
- It cannot be said that the state is acting arbitrarily or unreasonably when, in the in an election is not present in a plebiscite. (Sanidad v. COMELEC)
exercise of its judgment as to the measures necessary to protect the public
peace and safety it seeks to extinguish the spark of rebellion without waiting - CAN regulate time in broadcast media and space in papers, it does not violate freedom
until it has enkindled the flame or blazed into the conflagration. It cannot of expression. The general welfare is affected here, public interest demands that they
reasonably be required to defer the adoption of measures for its own peace and know their candidates. Also it would operate for
safety until the revolutionary utterances lead to actual disturbances of the public a limited period only.
peace or imminent and immediate danger of its own destruction; but it may, in - Equality of opportunity to proffer oneself for public office is also clearly an important
the exercise of its judgment, suppress the threatened danger in its incipiency. value. Therefore, no presumption of invalidity arises with respect to exercises of
supervisory or regulatory authority on the part of the COMELEC for purposes of securing
- All forms of communication are entitled to the broad protection of the freedom equal opportunity among candidates for political office, although such may result in some
of expression clause. Necessarily, however, the freedom of television and radio limitation of the rights of free speech and free press. (National Press Club v.
broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom accorded to COMELEC)
newspaper and print media due to its overwhelming reach and influence. The
clear and present danger test, therefore, must take the particular Campaign Stickers- The posting of decals and stickers in mobile places like cars and
circumstances of broadcast media into account. The government has a right to other moving vehicles does not endanger any substantial government interest. There is
be protected against broadcasts, which incite the listeners to violently overthrow no clear public interest threatened by such activity so as to justify the curtailment of the
it. (Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans) citizen's right of free speech and expression. Moreover, the freedom of expression
curtailed by the questioned prohibition is not so much that of the candidate or the
3. Balancing of Interest it is the courts function to balance public interest and the political party. The provision Is so broad that it encompasses even the private Citizen's
Constitutional freedoms affected by it, and to arrive at a judgment where the greater private property and the freedom to convince others to agree with him. (Adiong v.
weight shall be placed. i.e. RA4880 limiting period of partisan politics COMELEC)
- Proves that the freedoms are not absolute when there is a substantial interest involved.
- Usually used NOT to prevent evil or danger. - What is involved here is simply a regulation of time, place and manner. Any restriction
" Exceptions: contempt libel, obscenity and seditious speech of speech is only incidental and it is no more than necessary to achieve the purpose of
promoting equality of opportunity. What makes this regulation reasonable is that it
Right to privacy - seeks to protect people from unwarranted intrusions and wrongful applies only to the election period. For content-neutral restrictions such as the case at
publication of the private affairs and activities of individuals, which are outside the sphere bar, the O'Brien test must be used.
of legitimate public concern.
Content-Neutral Regulation
The right of privacy or "the right to be let alone," like the right of free expression, is not The O'Brien test provides that a Government regulation of time, space and manner is
an absolute right. A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as sufficiently justified if: W-F-U-R
permissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited a. If it is within the constitutional power of the Government,
from him or to be published about him constitute of a public character. The right of b. If it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest
privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and dissemination of matters of c. If the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free
public interest. The interest sought to be protected by the right of privacy is the right to expression
be free from unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs d. And if the incident restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms
and activities of an individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern. is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.
The invalidity of a measure of prior restraint does not mean that no subsequent liability
may lawfully be imposed upon a person claiming to exercise such constitutional freedoms. - Restrictions that are content-neutral are not censorial. The restriction is not concerned
The right of privacy of a "public figure" is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary with the content of the speech thus, it needs only a substantial governmental interest to
citizen. (Ayer Prod. PTY. Ltd. vs. J. Capulong) support them. (Osmena v. COMELEC)

Content-based vs. Content-neutral Regulations EXIT POLLS - random polling of voters as they come out of the booths, and the
Content-based is when the subject of the speech or utterance is sought to be regulated. dissemination of their results through mass media cannot be banned by COMELEC, they
To pass constitutional muster, any content-based regulation must show that the argue that it might confuse the voters. But it does not fall under clear and present
government has a compelling or overriding interest in the subject of the regulation. danger. The evil to be prevented is merely speculative. (ABS CBN v. COMELEC)
Content-neutral - Regulates only the conduct associated with speech, such as the time,
place and manner. A content-neutral restriction need only show an important or ELECTION SURVEYS a ban on surveys published 15days before elections for national
substantial government interest, for as long as it leaves open alternative channels of candidates and 7days before elections for local candidates is a direct and total

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
suppression of freedom of expression amounting to prior restraint. The governmental 2. The communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior having an
interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by other means. (SWS v. COMELEC) interest in the matter, who has the power to furnish the protections sought.
3. Statements are made in good faith and communicated w/o malice.
D. Commercial Speech
- Communication whose sole purpose is to propose a commercial transaction. Ex: Ads of Nature of Libel- The law against libel is protective of reputation according to community
goods or services standards and not according to family or personal standards (Bulletin Publishing Corp. v.
- It must not be false, misleading or illegal. (Friedman v. Rogers), or propose any Noel)
illegal activity (Pittsburgh Press v. Human Relations Commission)
- Does not enjoy the same protection as core speech (communicates political, religious - For liability to arise without offending the press freedom, the test to meet is WON the
and social ideas) statements were made with 'actual malice'- ie. knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (NY times v. Sullivan).
Even truthful and lawful commercial speech may be regulated if they fulfill the ff.
requirements of the Hudson Test: S-D-O Burden of Proving Malice- lies on the plaintiff (Borjal v. CA)
1. The governmental interest sought to be served by the regulation must be
substantial - Newspaper may publish news items relative to Judicial, legislative or other official
2. The regulation must be directly advance the government's interest proceedings, which are not of confidential nature, because the public is entitled to know
3. The regulation must not be overboard (Rubin v. Coors Brewing) the truth with respect to such proceedings, which, being official and non confidential, are
open to public consumption. But, to enjoy immunity, a publication containing derogatory
- The city's news rack policy is neither content neutral nor, "narrowly tailored." Thus, information must be not only true, but, also, fair, and. It must be made in good faith and
regardless of whether or not it leaves open ample alternative channels of communication, without any comments or remarks. Omissions in the newspaper report, is libel by
it cannot be justified as a legitimate time, place, or manner restriction on protected negligence.
speech. (Cincinnati v. Discovery Network) - If the publisher is unaware, when under the facts the truth could have been verified, the
publisher is guilty of negligence and was liable for libel. (Policarpio v. Manila Times)
- The ordinance prohibiting the placing of signs violates the residents' right to free
speech. While said signs are subject to the municipality's police power, any regulation Libel of Public Officials and Public Figure
may be challenged on the ground that it restricts too little speech because its exemptions - The constitutional guarantee prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a
discriminate on the basis of Sign's message or on the ground that it prohibits too much defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement
protected speech. was made with actual malice. (STANDARD: Bars media liability for defamation of a public
- The ordinance cannot be justified as time, place manner restriction since handbills and official absent proof that the defamatory statements were published with knowledge of
newspaper advertisements are inadequate substitutes for important medium such as the their falsity or in reckless disregard of the truth) (NY Times v. Sullivan)
posters that were prohibited by Ladue's ordinance. (City of Ladue v. Gilleo)
- The protection given to all debate and communication involving matters of public or
E. Unprotected Speech general concern is extended without regard to whether the persons involved are famous
LIBEL a pubic and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or or anonymous, but the commitment to robust debate on public issues cannot be
any act, omission, condition status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, displaced. (Rosenbloom v. Metromedia)
discredit or contempt of a person or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Elements: A-P-I-M - The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient
a. The allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another to deny Constitutional protection to speech that could not reasonably have been
b. Publication of the charge- making the defamatory matter, after it has been written, interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. The rule in TIMES case
known to someone other than the person to whom it has been written. is extended to PRIVATESECTOR PUBLIC FIGURES (e.g. newscaster, political analyst etc).
c. Identity of the person defamed (Hustler Magazine v. Falwell)
d. Existence of malice - when the author of the imputation is prompted by ill-will or spite
and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure reputation. - A publication relating to judicial action in a pending case which tends to impede
embarrass or obstruct the court and constitutes a clear and present danger to the
Privileged Communications- every defamatory act is presumed malicious except in the administration of justice is not protected by the guarantee of press freedom and is
following cases: punishable as contempt.
1. Private Communication made by any person to another in the performance of a To constitute contempt, the publication must have been made under the circumstance
legal, social or moral duty. as would be calculated to imperil the fair and orderly functioning of the judicial process,
2. Fair and true report, made in good faith, without comments, remarks of any not remotely or probably, but immediately, and it must constitute a clear and resent
juridical, legislative, or other official proceeding which are not confidential or of danger to the administration of justice which danger must be 'serious and substantial. (in
any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings. Or any other act re Jurado- Enrile v. Salazar)
performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.
Libel of Private Individuals - A publisher of defamatory falsehoods about an individual
Requisites: P-A-G who is neither a public official nor a public figure may not claim the New York Times
1. The person who made the communication has a legal, moral or social duty to protection against liability for defamation. Media defamation of private persons
make the communication, or had an interest to protect. whenever an issue of general or public interest is involved would be unfair

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
because private individuals characteristically have less effective opportunities for rebuttal the burden to show the existence of grace and imminent danger, and obscenity that
than public officials and public figures. New York Times standard is inapplicable to private would justify adverse action lies on the authorities.
individuals. (Gertz v. Welch)
- What mayor or authorities must do is to secure a warrant and convince the court or
Times Doctrine applied in Philippine Jurisprudence judge with jurisdiction that the materials sought to be seized are "obscene," and pose a
- An allegation is considered defamatory If it ascribes to a person the commission of a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and
crime which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to action. (Pita v. CA)
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
The requisites for libel are: The Court found that Indiana's public indecency statute is justified despite its incidental
a. the allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another; limitations on some expressive activity.
b. publication of the charge Applying O'Brien:
c. identity of the person defamed; and 1. The traditional police power of the State is defined as the authority to provide
d. existence of malice. for the public health, safety and morals. The statute reflected moral disapproval
- The RPC provides that if the defamatory statement is made against a public official with of people appearing in the nude among strangers in public places.
respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and the truth of the allegation 2. The public indecency statute furthers a substantial government interest in
is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal. (Vasquez v. CA) protecting order and morality
3. What Indiana prohibited was not dancing as a communicative element but
- It is essential in a libel suit that the victim be identifiable although it is not necessary simply its being done in the nude.
that he be named. It is also not sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as 4. Indiana's requirement that the dancers wear at least pasties and a g-string is
the person attacked but it must be shown that at least a third person could identify him modest and the bare minimum necessary to achieve the State's purpose.
as the object of the libelous publication. (Borjal v. CA) (Barnes v. Glenn Theatre)

- The petitioner's act of distributing copies of an article from The Inquirer stating that Obscenity on Radio- Stricter rules on obscenity must be followed especially because of
graft charges were filed against Judge Sidro cannot be considered as malicious. (Vicario its pervasive quality and the interest in the protection of children. The prohibition against
v. CA) censorship denies the Commission power to edit proposed programs in advance and to
excise material considered inappropriate. HOWEVER, the prohibition has never been
- The court held that the statements embodied in the advertisement and the open-letter construed to deny the commission the power to review the content of COMPLETED
are protected by the constitutional right of freedom of speech. The advertisement stating broadcasts in the performance of its regulatory powers. The commission has the right to
that a PCGG Commissioner committed illegal and unauthorized acts which constitute graft take not of past program content when considering a licensee's renewal application. (FCC
and corruption was held by the court to be a vehicle informing the public and the v. Pacifica Foundation)
stockholders of the goings-on in the business world. (Jalandoni v. Drilon)
OBSCENITY Zoning legislation- dealing with adult entertainment that does not ban adult theaters
Obscenity and Indecency something offensive to chastity, decency or delicacy. altogether is not invalid being properly analyzed as a form of time, place and manner of
In Testing for obscenity: the basic guidelines for the tier of facts must be: PI-SD-LV regulation. "Content-neutral time, place and manner regulations are acceptable so long as
(1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find they are designed to serve a substantial government interest an do not unreasonably
that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, limit alternative avenues of communication. (Renton v. Playtime Theatre)
community standards- standards of a specific community, which do not really vary from
other communities. Obscenity in School- The first amendment does not prevent the school district from
(2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct disciplining students in giving offensively lewd and indecent speech at a school assembly.
specifically defined by the applicable state law, and The use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making a
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or political point but it does not follow that the same latitude must be permitted to children
scientific value. (Miller v. California) in public school. (Bethel School District v. Fraser)

- Obscene material is that which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient - Schools have the authority to censor if it could affect the education of others. This case
interest. What is seen or perceived by an artist is entitled to respect, unless there is a led that the censorship in the schools was only acceptable if it were for "valid educational
showing that the product of his talent rightfully may be considered obscene. This ruling purpose." Stricter rules should be followed for speech in school because of the nature of
however, is limited to motion pictures. A less liberal approach is given for television since the community that is involved and the relationship between school and parents.
everyone; including children have easier access to television. (Gonzalez v. Kalaw- (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier)
F. Assembly and Petition
- To bar the exercise of the right, there must be a clear and present danger that would Content Neutral Regulation- The government has a right to regulate the time, manner
warrant State interference that a danger must not only be (1) clear, but also (2) and place of assemblies to ensure the maintenance of order and public safety.
present, to justify state action. There must be objective and convincing, not subjective or
conjectural, proof of the existence of such clear and present danger, not relying solely - The mayor possessed reasonable discretion to determine or specify the streets of public
on authority's own appraisal of what the public welfare, peace or safety may require. And

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
places to be used for the assembly in order to secure convenient use thereof by other and 3. The prohibition on religious tests
provide adequate and proper policing to minimize the risk of disorder and maintain public a. Essentially an extension of the free exercise clause
safety and order. (Navarro v. Villegas)
A. Non-establishment Clause
- The primacy if human rights, freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and petition - Neither a state nor a federal government can set up a church, pass laws which aid
for redress of grievances-over property rights should be sustained. To regard the one religion or prefer one religion over another, nor can it openly or secretly
demonstration against the police officers, not against the employer, as evidence of bad participate in the affairs of any religious organizations.
faith, a violation of the CBA and a cause for the dismissal from employment of the - Creates a wall of separation between church and state
demonstrating employees, stretches unduly the compass of the CBA, and is a potent
means of inhibiting speech and therefore inflicts a moral as well as mortal wound on the 2 Schools of thought/approaches on the Non-establishment clause
constitutional guarantees of free-expression of peaceful assembly and petition. 1. Strict Separation or Strict Neutrality
(Philippine Blooming Mills v. PBM) a. Believes that there must be a high and impenetrable wall separating
Church and State
Clear and Present Danger Test applied- In the absence of a clear and present danger b. Looks at the Religion Clause as a measure meant to protect the
of a substantive evil to a legitimate public interest, there was no justification then to deny Government from influence by Religion
the exercise of the constitutional rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. It is
settled law that as to public places, especially so as to parks and streets, there is freedom 2. Benevolent Neutrality or Accommodation Theory
of access, Nor is their use dependent on who is the applicant for the permit, whether an a. More tolerant than strict separation
individual or a group. (Reyes v. Bagatsing) b. Allows government aid to religion when the benefit is only incidental to a
secular purpose
Rules on Assembly and Petition: I-A-H-D c. Looks at the Religion clause as a measure meant to protect Religion and
1. Inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time Church from the awesome power of the Government
when it will take place (private place-only consent of owner required) d. Recognizes that there is a need to accommodate the religious needs of the
2. Application- filed ahead of time to enable public official concerned to appraise community and that the church and the State need not be adverse nor
whether there may be valid objections hostile to one another.
3. (Indispensable condition to refusal or modification that the CPD test be the e. Accommodates the needs of individuals to the operation of the law by
standard for the decision reached) carving out exemptions from its general application.
4. If public authority believes that there is an imminent and grave danger of
substantial evil, applicants must be heard on the matter. When is government aid allowable?
5. Decision must be transmitted at the earliest opportunity. Lemon Test: aid must have: S-E-E
(a) secular legislative purpose,
- It bears stressing that suspension of public services, however temporary, will inevitably (b) must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion,
derail services to the public, which is one of the reasons why the right to strike is denied (c) must not require excessive entanglement with recipient institution
government employees. (Acosta v. CA) (Lemon v. Kurtzman)

Definition of Public Assembly- The law refers to "rally, demonstration, march, parade, State sponsored bible readings and prayers in public schools violates fist and second
procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place." So it requisites. (School District v. Schempp)
does not cover any and all kinds of gatherings. It regulates the exercise of the right to Note: Schempp was an instance of Strict Separation or Strict Neutrality.
peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present
danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent. There is, likewise, no Parochial Schools - Parochial schools, in addition to their sectarian function, perform
prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not relevant to the regulation. the task of secular education. The Court cannot agree that all teaching in a sectarian
school is religious, or that the intertwining of secular and religious training is such that
Maximum Tolerance- The highest degree of restraint that the military, police and other secular textbooks furnished to students are, in fact, instrumental in teaching religion.
peacekeeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the
same. The law merely makes available to all children the benefits of a general program to lend
- Application for a permit can only be denied on the ground of clear and present danger to schoolbooks free of charge, and the financial benefit is to parents and children, not to
public order, public safety, public morals or public health. (Bayan v. Ermita) schools. (Board of Education v. Allen)

SECTION 5: No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting - The entanglement in the Pennsylvania also arises from the restrictions and surveillance
the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly non-ideological role and the state
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test supervision of nonpublic school accounting procedures required to establish the cost of
shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. secular as distinguished from religious education. In addition, the Pennsylvania statute
has the further defect of providing continuing financial aid directly to the church-related
Three parts of the Religion Clause schools. Unconstitutional due to excessive entanglement between govt & religion.
1. The Non-establishment clause (Lemon v. Kurtzman)
2. The free exercise clause

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- The part of the provision of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 providing for - The amendments of the constitution, restatement of articles of religion and
unlimited use of the buildings (for whatever purpose) after 20 years was invalidated as abandonment of faith or abjuration alleged by appellant, having to do with faith, practice,
amounting to a contribution to a religious body. (Tilton v. Richardson) doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church and having
reference to the power of excluding from the church those allegedly unworthy of
Use of Public Funds/ Facilities- The issuance and sale of the stamps commemorating membership, are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province
the International Eucharistic Congress is Valid. The government should not be precluded of the civil courts. Excommunication of members by a religious Institution is conclusive
from pursuing valid objectives secular in character even if the incidental result would be upon the courts. (Taruc v. Dela Cruz)
favorable to a religion or sect. (Aglipay v. Ruiz)
Ecclesiastical affair - one that concerns doctrine creed or form or worship of the
The wooden image was purchased in connection with the celebration of the barrio fiesta church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws
honoring the patron saint, San Vicente Ferrer, and not for the purpose of favoring any and regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of excluding from
religion nor interfering with religious matters or the religious beliefs of the barrio such associations those deemed unworthy of membership.
residents. The fiesta is a socio-religious affair.
Does the dimissal of a 7th Day Adventist Minister fall within the purview of the NLRC?
- Not every governmental activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and What is involved here is the relationship of the Church as an employer and the minister
which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding as an employee. It is purely secular, and has no relation whatsoever with the practice of
separation of church and state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money faith, worship, or the doctrines of the church. (Austria v. NLRC)
or property. (Garcez v. Estenzo)
How do we reconcile the conflicting cases/decisions on the religion clause?
- The crche, which sat on the main and most beautiful part of the country courthouse, a American jurisprudence has had a long history of flip-flopping between applying the Strict
seat of government, sends an unmistakable message that the country supported and Neutrality/Strict Separation Approach and the Benevolent Neutrality/Accommodationist
promoted the religious message. approach to cases involving the religion clause. This has led to confusion and uncertainty
in the disposition of religion cases in the United States.
- The menorah display did not have the prohibited effect of endorsing religion, given its
"particular physical setting". Its combined display with a Christmas tree and a sign Currently the prevailing approach in the United States is Strict Neutrality by virtue of
saluting liberty did not impermissibly endorse both the Christian and Jewish faiths, but Employment Division, Oregon Department of Human Resources v. Smith.
simply recognized that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday
season, which has attained a secular status in U.S. society. (County of Allegheny v. However, this question has been conclusively settled in Philippine Jurisdiction. In the
ACLU) 2003 and 2006 cases of Estrada v. Escritor, the Supreme Court held that Benevolent
Neutrality is the approach in our jurisdiction:
By according parents freedom to select a school of their choice, the statute ensures that a
government-paid interpreter will be present in a sectarian school only as a result of the Estrada v. Escritor (2003)
private decision of individual parents. The sign-language interpreter will neither add to The strict neutrality approach which examines only whether government action is for a
nor subtract from that environment, hence the provision of such assistance is not barred secular purpose and does not consider inadvertent burden on religious exercise protects
by the Establishment Clause. (Zobrest v. Catalina) such a rigid barrier. By adopting the above constitutional provisions on religion, the
Filipinos manifested their adherence to the benevolent neutrality approach in
Religious expression cannot violate the Establishment Clause where it interpreting the religion clauses, an approach that looks further than the secular purposes
(1) is purely private and of government action and examines the effect of these actions on religious exercise.
(2) occurs in a traditional or designated public forum, publicly announced and open to Benevolent neutrality recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino people and the
all on equal terms. elevating influence of religion in society; at the same time, it acknowledges that
- Those conditions are satisfied here, and therefore the State may not bar government must pursue its secular goals. In pursuing these goals, however, government
respondents' cross from Capitol Square. (Capitol Square Review Board v. might adopt laws or actions of general applicability which inadvertently burden religious
Pinette) exercise. Benevolent neutrality gives room for accommodation of these religious
exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. It allows these breaches in the wall of
- What should be significant is the principal objective of, not the casual consequence that separation to uphold religious liberty, which after all is the integral purpose of the religion
might follow from the exercise of the power. The purpose in setting up the marker is clauses.
essentially to recognize the distinctive contribution, of the late Felix Manalo to the culture
of the Philippines, rather than to commemorate his founding of Iglesia ni Cristo. B. Free Exercise Clause
(Manosca v. CA) In Cantwell v. Connecticut, it was held that there are 2 components to the free
exercise clause: The absolute freedom to believe and the freedom to act on that belief.
There is no compelling justification for the government to deprive Muslim organizations,
of their religious right to classify a product as halal, even on the premise that the health a. Freedom to believe
of Muslim Filipinos can be effectively protected by assigning to OMA the exclusive power The freedom to believe is Absolute and beyond control of the State
to issue halal certifications. (Islamic Dawah v. Executive Secretary) Prohibits thecompulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any
form of worship

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
ABSOLUTE FREEDOM- The government cannot inquire into a person's religious Amish - Respondents have amply supported their claim that enforcement of the
pretentions. Men may believe what they cannot prove, they may not be put to prove compulsory formal education requirement after the eighth grade would gravely endanger
their religious doctrines or beliefs. if not destroy the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Only the interest of the highest
The State is precluded from inquiring into the truth of ones religious beliefs. Heresy order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free
trials are not allowed exercise of religion. (Wisconsin v. Yoder)
The absoluteness of the freedom to believe carries with it the corollary that the
government, while it may look into the good faith of a person, cannot inquire - Respondents assured petitioners that they have never and will never restrict any person
into a person's religious pretensions. (US v. Ballard) or persons from entering and worshipping at said chapel. They maintain, however, that
the intention was not really to perform an act of religious worship but to conduct an anti-
b. Freedom to act on such belief- government demonstration at a place close to the very residence and offices of the
Free exercise of the chosen religion President. The reasonableness of the restriction of entry is designed to protect the lives of
NOT ABSOLUTE the President and his family, as well as government officials transacting business in
The moment belief flows over into action, it becomes subject to government Malacanang. (German v. Baranganan)
regulation for the protection of society
While the State may not look into the pretensions of ones religious belief, he must Free exercise of religion does not prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use
practice it in good faith tax on sales of religious materials by a religious organization. (Tolentino v. Sec. of
The State may prevent a person from exercising his religion in the interest of Finance)
compelling State interest and in the exercise of Police Power Solicitation of the Samahan ng Katandaan ng Tikay for Church Renovation Solicitation or
o Ex: the need for uniformity and discipline in the Military contribution in general, which may include contribution for religious purposes, may be
o National Security (German v. Barangan) regulated by general law for the protection of the public and its citizens from injury and
However, the exercise of Police Power must not be unduly oppressive. It must be suppress fraudulent solicitations. (Centeno v. Villalon Pomillos)
Neutral and of General Application advancing a legitimate government interest.
The Smith Standard-
- The free exercise of religious belief is superior to contract rights, in case of conflict, the A law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling
latter must yield to the former. Religious freedom, although not unlimited, is a government interest even if it has the incidental effect of burdening a particular
fundamental personal right and liberty, and has a preferred position in the hierarchy of religious practice.
values. Contractual rights must yield to religious freedom. (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Laws that burden religious practice do not have to be justified by a compelling
Workers Union) governmental Interest if they are:
(a) neutral and
- A certification exclusively for religious solicitation is in the form of prior restraint or (b) of general applicability.
censorship of religion since the determination of whether or not a certification will be (Church of Lukumi Babalu Ayeh v. City of Heilaeah)
released depends upon the secretary of public welfare. Even if interests be weighed, there The Smith Test is taken from the Leading Case of Employment Division v. Smith. It is
must be a showing of a clear and present danger in order for the state to limit the the test used under the Separation or Strict Neutrality approach
freedom of exercise of religion. (Cantwell v. State of Connecticut) Because we adhere to the Benevolent Neutrality approach, we use a different test in
determining whether or not government interference in Religious Belief is
- The constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession permissible.
and worship carries with it the right to disseminate religious information. Any restraint
can only be justified on the grounds that there is clear and present danger of any - Since the film series would not have been shown during school hours, nor was it
substantive evil, which the state has the right to prevent. sponsored by the school, and would have been open to the public, there would be no
realistic danger that the community would think that the District was endorsing religion or
- The state may not require a license for the dissemination of religious literature unless any creed. (Lambs Chapel v. School District)
the dissemination is done for a business operation (American Bible Society v. Manila)
Prayer in School Commencement Ceremonies- It is beyond dispute that, at a
- Exemption may be accorded to the Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to the observance minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to
of the flag ceremony out of respect for their religious beliefs, however "bizarre" those support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which
beliefs may seem to others. (Ebranilag v. Div. Superintendent of Schools in Cebu) "establishes a [state] religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." (Lee v. Weisman)

The MR for Ebralinag held that a statute that is facially neutral and is of general - As where any member of a religious corporation is expelled from the membership for
application may be unconstitutional when applied to a particular group because it violates espousing doctrines and teachings contrary to that of his church, such an action is
their right to religious exercise. conclusive upon civil courts. (Loong v. Basa)

The Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and - fired for use of religious peyote, could not get unemployed compensation. Valid because
that which is not. The AFRs reasonably and evenhandedly regulate dress in the interest of the religious clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law
the militarys perceived need for uniformity. (Goldman v. Weinberger) that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief
requires or forbids if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice.
(Employment Division, Oregon v. Smith)

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
What Test do we apply to determine whether or not government interference in 2) Religious freedom will not be upheld if it clashes with the established institutions of
Religious Exercise is valid? society and with the law such that when a law of general applicability incidentally burdens
Because we adhere to the Benevolent Neutrality approach, we apply the Compelling the exercise of ones religion, ones right to religious freedom cannot justify exemption
State Interest Test also known as the Sherbert Test (because it was used in the US from compliance with the law.
case of Sherbert v. Verner). According to this test, the validity of State intrusion with the
free exercise of religion is determined by: Benevolent neutrality recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino people and the
1. First, the court must first determine whether an individuals right to religious elevating influence of religion in society; at the same time, it acknowledges that the
freedom has been burdened. government must pursue its secular goals. In pursuing these goals, however, the
2. Second, the Court must determine whether the individuals religious belief in the government might adopt laws or actions of general applicability, which inadvertently
matter is sincere and its centrality in his faith. burden religious exercise. It allows these breaches in the wall of separation to uphold
3. If the first two inquiries prove positive, then the Court must require the State to religious liberty, which after all is the integral purpose of the religion clauses. (Estrada v.
demonstrate a Compelling State Interest in pursuing the interference or Escritor)
4. If such interest exists, then the State must prove that its chosen course of The performance of religious practices should not prejudice the courts and the public.
action is the least restrictive or least burdensome to the individuals religious Religious freedom does not exempt anyone from compliance with reasonable
freedom. (Estrada v. Escritor) requirements of the law, including the civil service laws. (In re. request of Muslim
C. No religious Test Employees)
" No law shall be passed which would require a person to profess a religion to qualify
in the exercise of his civil and political rights. SECTION 6: The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed
Purpose: to discredit the policy of probing into ones religious beliefs by test oaths by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right
or limiting public offices to persons who profess to a particular religion to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public
health, as may be provided by law
Clergy in Public Office- The religious freedom enshrined in the Bill of Rights simply
means that no public office may be denied to any person, by reason of his religious belief, A. Liberty granted by the provision
including his non-belief. When he becomes an ecclesiastic, he becomes the official 1. Freedom to choose and change one's place of abode -may be impaired
minister of his church with distinct duties and responsibilities which may not be always upon lawful order of the court and within the limits prescribed by law.
compatible with the posture of absolute indifference and impartiality to all religious
beliefs. UPHELD (Pamil v. Teleron) Liberty of Abode- One can search in vain for any law, order, or regulation, which even
hints at the right of the Mayor of the city of Manila or the chief of police of that city, to
- The right to the free exercise of religion unquestionably encompasses the right to force citizens of the Philippine Islands these women despite their being in a sense
preach, proselyte, and perform other similar religious functions, or, in other words, to be lepers of society are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the
a minister of the type McDaniel was found to be. Under the clergy-disqualification same constitutional guaranties as any other citizens to change their domicile from
provision, McDaniel cannot exercise both rights simultaneously because the State has Manila to another locality. (Villavicencio v. Lukban)
conditioned the exercise of one on the surrender of the other. UNCONSTITUTIONAL
(McDaniel v. Paty) - The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines, being invoked by
petitioner, are not absolute rights. It can be regulated by a lawful order such as releasing
- The freedom to act to one's belief is subject to regulation where the belief is translated a petitioner on bail. (Yap v. CA)
into external acts that affect the public welfare. Therefore, the religious program is not
beyond review by the Board (INC v. CA) 2. Freedom to travel both within the country and outside- may be impaired by
administrative authorities, such as passport officers, in the interest of national
What qualifies as religion? security or public health -also impaired by bail
A creed must meet 4 criteria to qualify as religion under the First Amendment: BG-
MC-DS-AT Right to travel- The right involved in this case at bar is the right to return to one's
1. There must be belief in God or some parallel belief that occupies a central country, a distinct right under international law, independent from, although related to
place in the believers life. the right to travel. Thus, the UNDHR and the IC-CPR treat the right to freedom of
2. The religion must involve a moral code transcending individual belief, i.e., it movement and abode within the territory of a state, the right to leave the country, and
cannot be purely subjective. the right to enter one's country as separate and distinct rights.
3. A demonstrable sincerity in belief is necessary, but the court must not inquire - The right to return to one's country is not covered by the specific right to travel and
into the truth or reasonableness of the belief. liberty of abode provided for in the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, the requirements
4. There must be some associational ties, although there is also a view that prescribed in the constitution relative to the right to travel do not apply. (Marcos v.
religious beliefs held by a single person rather than being part of the teachings Mangalapus)
of any kind of groups or sect are entitled to the protection of the Free Exercise
Clause. The right to Travel may be curtailed by Administrative officers in the interest of national
security, public safety or public heath, as may be provided by law.
The religious freedom doctrines one can derive from Gerona are:
1) It is incumbent upon the Court to determine whether a certain ritual is religious or not;

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
SECTION 7: The right of the people on matters of public concern shall be recognized. - The constitutional right to information includes official information on on-going
Access to official records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, negotiations before a final contract. The information, however, must constitute definite
transactions or decisions as well as to government research data used as basis for policy propositions by the government and should not cover recognized exceptions like
development shal be afforded to citizens subject to such limitations as may be provided privileged information, military, and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting
by law national security and public order. (Chavez v. PEA)

A. Rights granted by the provision Recognized limitations on right to information:NS-TS-CD

" The right to information and right to access of records and documents is a form of (a) National Security matters including state secrets on military, diplomatic and other
political right national security and information on inter-government exchanges prior to conclusion of
executive agreements or treaties,
- The incorporation in the Constitution of a guarantee of access to information of public (b) Trade secrets and banking transactions,
concern is recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas and information in a (c) Criminal matters or classified law enforcement matters,
democracy. In the instant case, while refusing to confirm or deny the claims of eligibility, (d) other confidential matters (diplomatic affairs)
the respondent has failed to cite any provision in the Civil Service Law which would limit
the petitioner's right to know who are, and who are not, civil service eligibles. (Legaspi Requirements of the Presidential Communications Privilege: Q-OP-C
v. CSC) 1. The communication must relate to a 'quintessential and non-delegable power
of the President -- the power to enter into an executive agreement with other
Petitioner requested for information on the eligibility of Sanitary standard inspectors: countries.
(Legazpi v. CSC) P-S-R 2. The communications are "received" by a close advisor of the President under the
1. Is such information a matter of public concern? operational proximity test
(Public Concern- embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the public may have a 3. There is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the
right to know, either because they directly affect their lives or simply because they arouse limitation of the privilege and the unavailability of the information elsewhere by
the interest of an ordinary citizen) an appropriate investigating authority.
2. Does petitioner have standing?
3. If denied, what remedy does he have? Mandamus NOTE: The right of Congress to obtain information in aid of legislation cannot be equated
with the people's right to public information. The former cannot claim that every
" Right may be regulated through standards that have been developed for the legislative inquiry is an exercise of the peoples right to information.
regulation of speech and press and of assembly and petition and of association are
applicable to the right of access to information: Diplomatic Negotiations - The Nature of diplomacy requires the centralization of
1. Substantive regulations to know what is sought is of public concern authority and expedition of decision, which are inherent in executive action. Delegates
2. Statutory regulations law may exempt documents affecting public interest from other countries tell you their concerns in confidence, and while the final text of the
3. Procedural regulations officers may regulate the manner by which the person JPEPA may not be perpetually confidential, the offers exchanged by the parties during the
may look through the information negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable
a. Government Contracts- right attaches once the committee makes its to assume that the Japanese delegates expect that historic confidentiality would govern
official recommendation, which is a definite proposition on the the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not
part of the government. only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations.
b. Treaties w/ other countries- Info on inter-government exchanges According to the case of Chavez vs. PCGG, the constitutional right to information
prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements with includes official information on on-going negotiations before a final contract. The
regard to diplomatic negotiations may be subject to reasonable information, however, must constitute definite propositions by the government and
safeguards for the sake of national interest. Right attaches ONLY upon should not cover recognized exceptions like privileged information, military and
final approval of the President. diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national security and public order. It
follows from this ruling that even definite propositions of the government may not be
Internal Manuals- The requirement of confidentiality of the contents of the manual disclosed if they fall under recognized exceptions. The privilege for diplomatic
containing the details and procedure of administering lethal injection with respect to the negotiations is clearly among the recognized exceptions (Akbayan v. Aquino)
convict is unduly suppressive for the contents of the same is a matter of public concern.
(Echagaray v. Sec. of Justice) Presidential Communications Privilege - presidential communications are presumed
privileged without distinguishing between those which involve matters of national security
- Once the committee makes its official recommendation, there arises a definite and those which do not, the rationale for this being that [a] frank exchange of
proposition on the part of the government. From this moment, the publics right to exploratory ideas and assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by
information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-proprietary information interested parties, is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of
leading to such definite proposition. those tasked to exercise Presidential, Legislative and Judicial power. It bears emphasis,
- A consummated contract is not a requirement for the exercise of the right to however, that the privilege accorded to presidential communications is not absolute, one
information. Otherwise, the people can never exercise the right if no contract is significant qualification being that the Executive cannot, any more than the other
consummated, and if one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to expose its branches of government, invoke a general confidentiality privilege to shield its officials
defects. Requiring a consummated contract will keep the public in the dark until the and employees from investigations by the proper governmental institutions into
contract becomes a fait accompli. possible criminal wrongdoing. This qualification applies whether the

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
privilege is being invoked in the context of a judicial trial or a congressional investigation
conducted in aid of legislation. SECTION 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation

Deliberative Process Privilege - covers documents reflecting advisory opinions, a) Expropriation in General
recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental Eminent Domain
decisions and policies are formulated. Notably, the privileged status of such documents " Ultimate right of sovereign power to appropriate, not only public, but also private
rests, not on the need to protect national security but, on the obvious realization property within the territorial sovereignty, for public purposes.
that officials will not communicate candidly among themselves if each remark is a " Inherently possessed by the State through the National government (legislature)
potential item of discovery and front page news, the objective of the privilege being to and may be delegated to:
enhance the quality of agency decisions. The diplomatic negotiations privilege bears a) local government units, pursuant to an ordinance enacted by
a close resemblance to the deliberative process and presidential communications respective legislative bodies.
privilege. It may be readily perceived that the rationale for the confidential character of b) Public utilities, as may be delegated by law.
diplomatic negotiations, deliberative process, and presidential communications is similar,
if not identical. Requisites for the valid exercise of the power of eminent domain:
a. The property taken must be private property;
THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC b. There must be genuine necessity to take the private property;
OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP) c. The taking must be for public use;
The people's right to information on matters of public concern under Sec. 7, Article III of d. There must be payment of just compensation; and
the Constitution is in splendid symmetry with the state policy of full public disclosure of all e. The taking must comply with due process of law.
its transactions involving public interest under Sec. 28, Article II of the Constitution. The
right to information guarantees the right of the people to demand information, while Requisites for the LGU to exercise eminent domain
Section 28 recognizes the duty of officialdom to give information even if nobody 1. Valid and definite offer previously made to the owner but was not accepted
demands. The complete and effective exercise of the right to information necessitates 2. Ordinance enacted authorizing such exercise
that its complementary provision on public disclosure derive the same self-executory 3. Power enacted for public use, welfare, purpose or for the benefit of the
nature, subject only to reasonable safeguards or limitations as may be provided by law. poor and landless
4. Payment of just compensation
The contents of the MOA-AD is a matter of paramount public concern involving public
interest in the highest order. In declaring that the right to information contemplates steps Despite the existence of this legislative grant in favor of local governments, it is still the
and negotiations leading to the consummation of the contract, jurisprudence finds no duty of the courts to determine whether the power of eminent domain is being exercised
distinction as to the executory nature or commercial character of the agreement. in accordance with the delegating law. The requisites to be considered by the courts are:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council authorizing the local
An essential element of these twin freedoms is to keep a continuing dialogue or process chief executive, in behalf of the local government unit, to exercise the
of communication between the government and the people. Corollary to these twin rights power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation proceedings over a
is the design for feedback mechanisms. The right to public consultation was envisioned to particular private property. x x x
be a species of these public rights. In the present case, the City of Mandaluyong seeks to exercise the power of eminent
domain over petitioners' property by means of a resolution, in contravention of the first
The invocation of the doctrine of executive privilege as a defense to the general right to requisite. Section 19 of the Code requires an ordinance, not a resolution, for the exercise
information or the specific right to consultation is untenable. The various explicit legal of the power of eminent domain.
provisions fly in the face of executive secrecy. In any event, respondents effectively
waived such defense after it unconditionally disclosed the official copies of the final draft The Court, in Municipality of Paranaque vs V.M. Realty Corporation, distinguished
of the MOA-AD, for judicial compliance and public scrutiny. between an ordinance and a resolution. A municipal ordinance is different from a
resolution. An ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of the sentiment
SECTION 8: The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific matter. An ordinance possesses a general
sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for the purposes not contrary to law and permanent character, but a resolution is temporary in nature. Additionally, the two
shall not be abridged. are enacted differently a third reading is necessary for an ordinance, but not for a
resolution, unless decided otherwise by a majority of all the Sanggunian members.
" Government employees have the right to form unions but this does not include the (Heirs of Alberto Suguitan v. City of Mandaluyong)
right to strike. Government employees are denied the same weapons/modes of
petitioning and negotiation that their private sector counterparts have for the b) Power to Undertake Expropriation Case
betterment of the terms and conditions of their employment. (SSS Employees v. CA) Substitution - The real party in interest in expropriation cases is the Republic of the
o this Court had already definitively ruled that employees in the public (civil) Philippines. Expropriation suits are brought in behalf of and for the benefit of the Republic
service, unlike those in the private sector, do not have the right to strike, of the Philippines. it follows that the Republic of the Philippines is entitled to be
although guaranteed the right to self-organization, to petition Congress for the substituted in the expropriation proceedings as party-plaintiff in lieu of ISA, the statutory
betterment of employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with appropriate term of ISA having expired. Put a little differently, the expiration of ISA's statutory term
government agencies for the improvement of such working conditions as are not did not by itself require or justify the dismissal of the eminent domain
fixed by law (Manila Public School Teachers Assoc. v. Laguio Jr.) proceedings. (Iron and Steel Authority v. CA)

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
-Threshold requisites for lawful taking of private property for public use need to be - There is no reason why the State may not require a public utility to render services in
examined here: one is the necessity for the taking; another is the legal authority to effect the general interest, provided just compensation is paid therefor. Ultimately, the
the taking.A reasonable relationship between that power and the enforcement and beneficiary of the interconnecting service would be the users of both telephone systems,
administration of election laws by Comelec must be shown; it is not casually to be so that the condemnation would be for public use. (Republic v. PLDT)
assumed. (Philippine Press Institute v. COMELEC)
- Upon the filing of the complaint in Eminent Domain proceedings, or at any time
Compliance with procedural due process is mandatory. Condemnation must be a thereafter, after due notice to defendant, the petitioner has the right to take or enter
last resort - In the same vein, expropriation proceedings are to be resorted to only after upon the possession of the real property involved if he deposits an amount equivalent to
the other modes of acquisition have been exhausted. Compliance with these conditions is the assessed value of the property with the PNB for purposes of taxation. (NPC v. Jocson)
mandatory because these are the only safeguards of often-times helpless owners of
private property against violation of due process when their property is forcibly taken - There is no taking since the landmark law had not transferred control over the property
from them for public use. (Estate of Heirs of the Late Ex-Justice JBL v. City of Manila) to the city, but only restricted the appellant's exploitation of it. A state statute that
substantially furthers important public policies and enhances the quality of life by
c) Rights of Owner before Expropriation preserving the character and desirable aesthetic features of a city may so frustrate
Until expropriation proceedings are instituted in court, the landowner cannot be deprived distinct INVESTMENT-BACKED INTERESTS.
of its right over the land. (Greater Balanga v. Municipality of Balanga) - There is a DIFFERENCE between REASONABLE use of property and MOST BENEFICIAL
use of property = No taking occurs if owner can still reasonably use the property, even
d) Elements of Taking: if he may bear some losses due to States restriction/laws.
Requisites for Taking:
1. The expropriator must enter upon the private property HOWEVER, a restriction on real property may constitute a "taking" if:
2. The entrance must not be for a momentary periods, that is, the entrance must a. No public purpose
be permanent b. Has an unduly harsh impact upon the owner's use of the property
3. The entry must be under the warrant or color of legal authority c. Has same effect as the complete destruction of rights of land owners
4. The property must be devoted for public use (Penn Central Transport v. NYC)
5. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property. Trade Secrets- Despite their intangible nature, trade secrets have many of the
(Republic v. Vda. De Castelvi) characteristics of more traditional forms of property. Moreover, this Court has found other
kinds of intangible interests to be property for purposes of the Clause. The court also
- Where there is no taking of property for purposes of eminent domain, nor condemnation held that so long as the taking has a conceivable public character, the means by which it
proceedings instituted, the basis for determination of just compensation is the time when will be attained is for congress to determine.
the trial court made its order of expropriation. (Garcia v. CA) In deciding whether a particular governmental action (short of acquisition) has
effected a taking, this Court focuses on:
- The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. But this general principle does 1) The character of the governmental action
not apply here. If the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have 2) The economic impact
exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Though only an 3) Whether the action interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations
easement of flight is involved, that easement, if permanent and not merely temporary, (Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto)
would be a definite exercise of complete dominion and control over the surface of the
land. The fact that the planes never touched the surface would be irrelevant. The owner's - In the determination of [fair market] value, the court is not limited to the assessed
right to possess and exploit the land -- that is to say, his beneficial ownership of it -- value of the property or to the schedule of market values determined by the provincial or
would be destroyed. It is the Owners Loss, NOT the takers gain, which is important. city appraisal committee; these values consist but one factor in the judicial valuation of
the property. The nature and character of the land at the time of its taking is the principal
- Compensable taking does not need to involve all the property Interests, which form part criterion for determining how much just compensation should be given to the landowner.
of the right to ownership. When one or more of the property rights are appropriated and All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings, as well as its
applied to a public purpose, there is taking even if the bare title to the property still improvements and capabilities, should be considered.
remains with the private owner. (US v. Causby)
- If the easement is intended to perpetually or indefinitely deprive the owner of his
- Property rights essentially include the full use of the property. An ordinance which proprietary rights by imposing conditions that affect the ordinary use, free enjoyment and
permanently restricts the use of property, that it cannot be used for any reasonable disposal of the property or through restrictions and limitations that are inconsistent with
purpose, is recognized as a taking of property. If the municipality wants to assure that no the exercise of the attributes of ownership, or when the introduction of structures or
structure would obstruct the view of the plaza, they should have given just compensation objects which, by their nature, create or increase the probability of injury, death upon or
for the land. (People v. Fajardo) destruction of life and property found on the land is necessary, then the owner should be
compensated for the monetary equivalent of the land. (NPC v. Tiangco)
Public Utilities- While the Republic may not compel PLDT to enter into a contract, the
Republic may, in the exercise of eminent domain, require PLDT to permit interconnection e) Public Use any use that is of utility, advantage or productivity for the benefit of
of the government phone system w/ PLDT, subject to just compensation to be determined the public.
by the court.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- Public Use requirement is a flexible, comprehensive and evolving concept. Whatever it would enable the defendant to keep the benefits already delivered by him from the
may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies this requirement. The transaction in litigation, and, at the same time, evade the obligations, responsibilities or
construction of low-cost housing is recognized as a public purpose. It is made pursuant to liabilities assumed or contracted by him thereby. (Mactan v. Tudtud)
the Sates mandate to promote social justice in all phases of national development.
f) Just compensation just and complete equivalent of the loss, which the owner has
Socialized housing- falls within the confine of public use. As long as the purpose of the to suffer by reason of the expropriation. Sum equivalent to market value. Must be
taking is public, meaning, any act that may be beneficially employed for the general direct payments and not just deposits.
welfare, then the power of eminent domain comes into play.(Sumulong v. Guerrero)
Just Compensation= Fair Market Value (+) consequential Damages (-) consequential
- The City of Manila, through its legislative branch, has the express power to acquire Benefits
private lands and subdivide these lands into home lots for sale to bona fide tenants or
occupants, and to laborers and low-salaried employees of the city. That only a few could Fair Market Value- The market value of a piece of land is attained by a consideration of
actually benefit from the expropriation of the property does not diminish its public use all those facts, which make it commercially valuable. The rule that should be followed is
character. It is simply not possible to provide all at once land and shelter for all who need that: the market value of a property Is the price which It will bring when It is offered for
them (Sumulong v. Guerrero). Public use now includes the broader notion of indirect sale by one who desires, but is not obliged to sell it, and is bought by one who us under
public benefit or advantage, including in particular, urban land reform and housing.(Phil. no necessity of having it. The view of the commissioners who are disinterested
Columbian Assoc. v. Hon. Panis) landowners Is given greater weight than that of an ordinary tier of facts. (City of Manila
v. Estrada)
- The idea that "public use" is strictly limited to clear cases of "use by the public" has long
been discarded. That only a few would actually benefit from the expropriation of property General Rule: value must be as of the time of the filing, which is also the time of the
does not necessarily diminish the essence and character of public use. As long as the taking.
public has right of use, whether exercised by one or many members, a "public advantage" o Filing comes later than the taking value at the taking
or "public benefit" accrues, sufficient to constitute a public use. It may be limited to the o Value increased independently value is at the filing
inhabitants of a small or restricted locality, but must be in common, and not for a o Must be determined on trial by commissioners (MERALCO v. Pineda) but
particular individual(s) alone. (Manosca v. CA) the report is not final or conclusive but recommendatory
o May be in the form of money or government bonds, as long as it is certain
- It is well settled that expropriation of private land for urban development and slum o Factors to be considered: nature of the property, future convertibility,
clearance is for a public purpose even if the developed area is afterwards sold to private change in value of peso, value of standing crops, time of taking
homeowners, commercial firms, entertainment, and service companies. (Reyes v. NHA)
- When the plaintiff takes possession before the institution of the condemnation
- The limited meaning attached to "public use" is "use by the public" or "public proceedings, the value should be fixed as of the time of the taking of the said possession,
employment," that "a duty must devolve on the person or corporation holding property not the filing of the complaint, and the latter should be the basis for the determination of
appropriated by right of eminent domain to furnish the public with the use intended, and the value. When the taking of the property involved coincides with or is subsequent
that there must be a right on the part of the public, or some portion of it, or some public to, the commencement of the proceedings, it will be the basis of the value of the land.
or quasi-public agency on behalf of the public, to use the property after it is condemned." (Municipality of Daet v. CA)

- The more generally accepted view sees "public use" as "public advantage, convenience, - To determine just compensation for lands appropriated by the government, the basis
or benefit, and that anything which tends to enlarge the resources, increase the industrial should be the value of the land or price at the time it was taken from the owner and
energies, and promote the productive power of any considerable number of the appropriated by the government not its future potential. (NPC v. CA)
inhabitants of a section of the state, or which leads to the growth of towns and the
creation of new resources for the employment of capital and labor, [which] contributes to - The nature of land bank bond fortifies the view that respondent may be compelled to
the general welfare and the prosperity of the whole community." In this jurisdiction, accept those bonds at their face value. Agrarian reform cannot be fully realized without
"public use" is defined as "whatever is beneficially employed for the community." the intervention of the government particularly in the payment of just compensation it is
(Barangay v. CA) only with the support of the government that payment of just compensation to landowner
may be realized. (Maddumba v. GSIS)
- Meaningful statements in the body of the Decision warrant the conclusion that the
expropriated properties would remain to be so until it was confirmed that Lahug Airport - Among the factor to be considered in arriving at a fair market value of the property are
was no longer "in operation". This inference further implies that after the Lahug Airport the cost of acquisition, the current value of the properties, its actual or potential uses and
ceased its undertaking as such and the expropriated lots were not being used for any tax declarations. Commissioner's report although only advisory and persuasive and by no
airport expansion project, the rights vis--vis the expropriated Lots Nos. 916 and 920 as means final, therefore, may be used as basis for determination of just compensation.
between the State and their former owners, petitioners herein, must be equitably (Berkentotter v. CA)
In executory contracts there is a wide field for fraud because unless they be in writing - Just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid
there is no palpable evidence of the intention of the contracting parties. The statute has to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within reasonable time from its
precisely been enacted to prevent fraud. However, if a contract has been totally or taking. (Land Bank v. CA)
partially performed, the exclusion of parol evidence would promote fraud or bad faith, for

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
The valuation of property in eminent domain is essentially a judicial function which # The alteration or change that the new legislation desires to write must not be
cannot be vested in administrative agencies. (Republic v. CA) burdened with restrictions and conditions that would make the remedy hard to
Determination of fair market value - The nature and character of the land at the time
of its taking is the principal criterion to determine just compensation to the landowner. Therefore, police power may only be invoked and justified by: 1) an emergency, 2)
temporary in nature, 3) can only be exercised upon reasonable conditions.
The fair market valuation of land to be taken should not be based on the value of
adjacent lots if the nature of the adjacent lots is different from the land sought to be The contract may be altered validly if it involves the public interest, to which private
expropriated. (NPC v. Henson) interests must yield lies a postulate of the existing social order. In Norman vs. Baltimore,
the court stressed that every contract involving the public interest suffers infirmity and
In the event when the government is obliged to return the land expropriated and the may be changed if required by public interest. (Philippine Veterans Bank Employees v.
private party is obliged to return the purchase price but the government fails to comply, Philippine Veterans Bank)
such failure amounts to expropriation without just compensation. The private party is
entitled to compensation in the form of rentals and interest. (Mactan v. Urgello) -Legislation appropriate to safeguard said interest may modify or abrogate contracts
already in effect. For not only are existing laws read into contracts in order to fix the
g) Judicial Review- of the exercise of eminent domain is limited the following areas of obligations as between the parties but the reservation of essential attributes of sovereign
concern: power is also read into contracts as a postulate of the legal order.
1. adequacy of compensation, To come under the constitutional prohibition, the law must effect a change in the rights of
2. necessity of the taking, and the parties with reference to each other and not with reference to non-parties. (Abella v.
3. public use character of the purpose of the taking NLRC)
Exception: when land is for subdivision and resale for social justice by legislature.
Municipal Resolution- although not strictly an ordinance is a zoning regulation which is
- Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private property should be a police power measure which the municipality has the power to pass. (Presley v. Bel-
taken. Due process must be served. With due recognition of the power of Congress to Air Village Assn. also held in Ortigas v. FEATI Bank)
designate the particular property to bet taken and how much thereof may be condemned
in the exercise of the power of expropriation, it is still a judicial question whether in the The requirement of notice of the rescission under the Maceda law doesnt change the time
exercise of such competence, the party adversely affected is a victim of partiality and or mode of performance or impose new conditions or dispense with the stipulations
prejudice. (De Knecht v. Bautista) regarding the binding effect of the contract. Neither does it withdraw the remedy for its
enforcement. At most, it merely provides for a procedure in aid of the remedy of
- BP 340 effectively superseded the decision of the court and the trial court did not rescission. Therefore, it doesnt impair the obligations of a contract. (SISKA Development
commit any grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case pending before it on the v. Office of the President)
ground of the enactment of BP 340. Said decision is no obstacle to the legislative arm of " Includes franchises but not licenses or permits since these are special privileges,
the government. (Republic v. De Knecht) marriage contracts, public office

SECTION 10: No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed A provision of law prohibiting the use of the allotted modernization funds for payment of a
contract already entered into by the government is violative of the Constitutional
When does law impair obligations of contracts: Prohibition on the passage of laws that impair the obligation of contracts. (Philconsa v.
i. If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract Enriquez)
wither as to the time or mode of performance
ii. If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those Contracts of labor are impressed with public interest and may be subject to state
expressed regulation and must yield to the common good. Matters involving the public interest and
iii. If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from welfare cannot be placed by contract beyond the power of the State to regulate and
that provided in its terms. control. (CMMA v POEA)

A mere change in procedural remedies which does not change the substance of the The police power is superior to contractual stipulations between parties on the use of
contract and which still leaves a remedy for enforcement does not impair obligations of lands sold by subdivisions even if said conditions are annotated on the Torrens Title.
contracts. (Home Building and Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell; Rutter v. Esteban) It should be stressed, that while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionally
guaranteed, the rule is not absolute, since has to be reconciled with the legitimate
Police Power- All contracts are made subject to an implied reservation of the protective exercise of police power, i.e., the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health,
power of the state and that therefore statutes, which validly exercise this, reserved power morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people.
does not impair contracts (Del Rosario v. Delos Santos) Invariably described as the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers, the
In all cases: exercise of the power may be judicially inquired into and corrected only if it is capricious,
# Impairment should only refer to the remedy and not to substantive right, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, there having been a denial of due process or a
# State must postpone the enforcement of obligation but cannot destroy it by violation of any other applicable constitutional guarantee. (Ortigas & Co. Ltd. vs.
making the remedy futile and FEATI)

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
A tax exemption contained in the Certificates of Registration is far from being contractual Miranda Rights:
in nature in the sense that the non-impairment clause of the Constitution can rightly be A. Must be recited:
invoked. (Republic v. Caguioa) - You have a right to remain silent
- Anything you say or do will be used against you in court
Contractual tax exemptions versus franchise tax exemptions - You have a right to consult with a lawyer and to have him during the interrogation.
Contractual tax exemptions must not be confused with tax exemptions granted under -If you are an indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent you.
franchises. A franchise partakes the nature of a grant which is beyond the purview of the
non-impairment clause of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, a franchise is always B. Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the
under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the interrogation must
Congress when the common good so requires. Contractual tax exemptions, however, may cease until an attorney is present.
invoke the non-impairment clause. (MERALCO v. Prov. of Laguna)
C. If the foregoing protections and warnings are not demonstrated during the trial to have
Endorsement billboards of an electoral candidate may be regulated/removed by COMELEC been observed by the prosecution, no evidence obtained as a result of the interrogation
without violating the non-impairment clause as a valid exercise of police power because can be used against him. (Miranda v. Arizona)
the billboards assumed partisan political character when he filed for candidacy. (Chavez v
COMELEC) -These rights become available when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into
an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been
A mortgage involving inalienable land is void ab initio and cannot be the source of rights. taken into police custody, the police carryout a process of interrogation that lends itself to
The non-impairment clause may not be invoked, because the states restraint on private eliciting incriminating statements; usually after a person has been taken into custody or
individuals from holding ownership or vested rights on the said land (Forest) is a valid otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
exercise of police power. (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands) WHEN ARE THE RIGHTS AVAILABLE (P. v. Tan)
1. After a person has been taken into custody
SECTION 11: Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal 2. When a person is otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way (P.
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty v. Caguioa)
3. When the investigation is being undertaken by the government with respect to a
SECTION 12: criminal offense. (In P. v. Morado, a baranggay captains conversation with the accused
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right is part of an ongoing investigation. But in P. v. Zuela,when the accused talked with a
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a competent and mayor AS CONFIDANT and not as a law enforcement officer, his admission is admissible)
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the 4. Signing of arrest report and booking sheets (P. v. Simon)
service of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived -not until there is a police investigation.
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiates Ex: a person going through an audit does not have these rights, a person presenting
the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, himself for his admission (voluntary surrender), Police line up (unless there is a move to
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. elicit admission), admission to someone not a public officer (verbal confessions to a radio
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or section 17 shall be announcer)
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as **RA 7438 has extended the Constitutional guarantee to situations in which an individual
well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, has not been formally arrested but has merely been invited for questioning. (People v.
and their families. Domantay; People v. Tan)

A. Custodial Investigation WHEN DO THE RIGHTS END?

" Questioning initiated by law enforcement officer after one is taken into custody or - The criminal process includes the investigation prior to the filing of charges, the
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way preliminary investigation and investigation after charges are filed, and the period for trial.
Rights: (1) to remain silent (2) to counsel and (3) to be informed of rights The rights under Section 12(1) were conceived for the first phase, when the enquiry is
under the control of the police officers.
**Right to counsel is intended to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the
accused to admit something false. The lawyer should never prevent the accused from Sec. 12(1) DOES NOT apply to persons under preliminary investigation or already
freely and voluntarily speaking the truth (People v. Layuso) charged in court with a crime (People v. Ayson)

The rules on custodial investigations do not apply when the confession is made to a However, even after the charges are filed, if the police still attempt to extract confessions
private individual because that situation would not be one of a custodial investigation. or admissions outside of judicial supervision, section 12(1) should still apply.
(People v. Tawat)
The presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply t in-custody confessions. In Police Line-Up
order for it to be admissible, the prosecution must show that the constitutional When petitioner was identified by the complainant at the police line-up, he had
safeguards were observed in obtaining the confession. (People v. Tolentino) not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense. The police line-up is not a

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
part of the custodial inquest; hence, he was not yet entitled to counsel. Thus, it was held Mahinay Case: has right to communicate with lawyer and family, has right to waive any
that when the process had not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory as rights provided it is voluntary, knowingly and intelligently
when police investigation does not elicit a confession the accused may not yet avail of the
services of his lawyer. The 1987 Constitution covers both confessions and admissions

Since petitioner in the course of his Identification in the police line-up had not yet been Admission acts, declarations or omissions of the party as to a relevant fact.
held to answer for a criminal offense, he was, therefore, not deprived of his right to be Confession declaration of the accused acknowledging his guilt to the offense charged,
assisted by counsel because the accusatory process had not yet set in. or any offense necessarily included therein.

While the Court finds no real need to afford a suspect the services of counsel during a To be admissible:
police line-up, the moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators to elicit 1. Confession must be voluntary,
admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or 2. Made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel,
innocuous at the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by 3. The confession must be express,
counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the 4. It must be in writing,
presence of counsel. (Gamboa v. Judge Cruz) 5. Signed or thumb marked.

A person already under custodial investigation who is placed in a police line-up is entitled - Advice of Police-provided counsel, telling the accused that tit would be better for him to
to Section 12 rights. (People v. Macam) speak or tell the truth does not furnish any inducement, to render a confession thereby
obtained unless threats or promises are applied.
As a rule, an accused is not entitled to the assistance of counsel in a police line-up
considering that such is usually not a part of the custodial inquest. However, the case at General Rule: Extra-judicial statements, as a rule, are admissible against their respective
bar is different inasmuch as accused-appellant was already under custodial declarants pursuant to the rule that the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
investigation when these out-of-court identifications were conducted by the police. relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.
We have thus ruled that any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police
line-up, or in a show-up for that matter, after the start of the custodial investigation However, the rule that an extra-judicial statement is evidence only against the person
is inadmissible as evidence against him. However the inadmissibility of these out-of-court making it, recognizes several exceptions:
identifications does not render the in-court identification of accused-appellant Interlocking Confessions- When several people are charged with an offense, and there
inadmissible for being fruits of the poisonous tree. (People v. Escordial) could have been NO collusion between them regarding their confessions, the fact that
statements are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the confession of the
Exceptions: co-defendants, and is admissible against other people implicated therein. They are also
The accused was convicted on the strength of the testimonies of 3 eyewitnesses who admissible as circumstantial evidence against the persons implicated therein to show the
positively identified him as the gunman. However, he vigorously assails his out-of-court probability of the latters actual participation in the commission of the crime.
identification by these eyewitnesses.
Illegal Confessions/Admissions are inadmissible against the source of the confession BUT
Using the totality of circumstances test, the alleged irregularities cited by the accused did they are admissible against the person violating the constitutional prohibition.
not result in his misidentification nor was he denied due process. There is nothing wrong
in Leinos identification of the accused in an unoccupied house in Forbes Park. The records It is but natural for one who surrenders to the police to give reason or explanation for his
reveal that this mode was resorted to by the authorities for security reasons. The Leinos act of surrendering. If he voluntarily admits the killing and surrendered precisely because
refused to have the identification at the NBI office as it was cramped with people and with he wanted to admit to the killing, the constitutional rights to be informed of his right to
high security risk. Leinos fear for his safety was not irrational. He and his companions silence and to counsel may not be invoked. (People v. Taylaran)
had been shot in cold blood in one of the exclusive, supposedly safe subdivisions in the
metropolis. Right to be informed of his rights
The right to be informed must be presumed to contemplate the transmission of a
There is no hard and fast rule as to the place where suspects are identified by witnesses. meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an
Identification may be done in open field. It is often done in hospitals while the crime and abstract constitutional principle. The officer is not only duty bound to tell the person the
the criminal are still fresh in the mind of the victim (People v. Teehankee) right the latter is entitled, but also to explain their effects in practical terms. (People v.
Ramos, People v. Caguioa)
Other Exceptions: (1) investigation by an administrative body, (2) spontaneous
statements, (3) audit examination, (4) not in police custody, (5) marked money, (6) The right of a person to be informed implies a correlative obligation on the part of the
booking sheets, (7) taking of pictures, (8) incidental to a lawful arrest, (9) body police investigator to explain, and contemplates an effective communication that results
examination, (10) preliminary investigation in understanding what is conveyed. (People v. Nicandro; People v. Pinlac)

- The constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and not when the body Right to Competent and Independent Counsel
of the accused is proposed to be examined. -A lawyer is deemed engaged by the accused when he(accused) never raised any
Ex: paraffin test objection against the lawyers appointment.
-The accused may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Where a bloodstained knife is found as a consequence of uncounseled extrajudicial
When the accused never raised any objection against the lawyers appointment during confession, the knife is inadmissible as evidence because it is the fruit of a constitutionally
the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of infirm interrogation. (Abale v. People)
his statement before the swearing officer, the accused may now be deemed to have
engaged the lawyer provided by the investigators. (People v. Jerez; People v. Suarez) What the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort
communication from the accused, but not an inclusion of his body in evidence when it
The court, during trial, is not duty bound to appraise the accused that he has the right to may be material. (Gutang v. People: on the admissibility of urine samples as evidence)
remain silent. It is counsel that should claim the right for him. If counsel does not claim
the right and calls the accused to the witness stand, then he waives the right to be silent. May a receipt for property seized signed by the accused without being assisted by counsel
(People v. Tampus) be admissible in evidence against him? No, this is tantamount to an extra-judicial
Who are not independent counsel:
a. Special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a Signature in a booking sheet and arrest report- NOT an admission of guilt; only proves
municipal attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused. the fact of the arrest.
(People v. Fabro) Immunity against Self-Incrimination
b. A Mayor (People v. Talman) The right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself may be invoked not only in
c. A baranggay captain (People v. Tomaquin) criminal proceedings but also in all other types of suits, including forfeiture cases. What is
d. Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused controlling is not the character of the suit but the nature of the proceedings. Should a
person be compelled to be a witness against himself, that person should be provided with
Effective and Vigilant counsel defined immunity- immunity from using the witness compelled testimony and its fruits in any
The right to counsel was denied Sunga during his execution of Exhibit A- admission manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness and immunity to the
before the police on the ground that the counsel who assisted him, Att. Agustin witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. If a
Rocamora, was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Pincesa. person who testified is not offered immunity before they were questioned, although that
person did not invoke his right against self-incrimination in such proceeding, his
The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a lawyer in the courtroom or testimony would be inadmissible as evidence. (Galman v. Pamaran)
the mere propounding of standard questions and objections; rather it means an efficient
and decisive legal assistance and not a simple perfunctory representation.(People v. Section 12(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation
Sunga) Prohibited because they vitiate truth and assault the dignity of the person.

Waiver of Rights SECTION 13: All person, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
- Must be done in writing and in the presence of counsel. perpetua, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
- The state must bring the person to a place where there is a lawyer sufficient sureties or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right
to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
When the accused stated that that he needed no counsel, that he was going to tell the suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
truth, and did not ask for a lawyer, his confession is inadmissible. The authorities failed to
apprise him of his right to counsel when he wrote the confession. An accuseds waiver of Bail mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty, insure the
his rights and signification of willingness to make a confession are ceremonies that attendance of the accused at his trial; takes the form of a deposit of money or its
require the presence of counsel. (Morales v. Moncupa; People v. Galit; Demaisip v. equivalent as a guarantee of attendance. Failure to appear would forfeit the deposit.
Admissible and Inadmissible Evidence 1. To honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is prove beyond reasonable
- Only refers to extrajudicial confession or admission made during custodial investigation, doubt
evidence gathered without counsel is admissible. 2. To enable him to prepare hi defenses without being subject to punishment prior to
Ex: accused pointed out where the murder weapon is without counsel- admissible. But if conviction. (Cortes v. Catral)
evidence is found through an extrajudicial confession without Counsel- inadmissible
Bail has neither punitive nor revenue raising purpose. (Almeda v. Villaluz)
For in custody confessions to be admissible, the prosecution must show that the - Available to all persons detained, unless offense is punishable by Reclusion Perpetua or
constitutional safeguards were observed in obtaining the confession. (Magtoto v. Death when the evidence against the accused is strong (Bail is a matter of discretion of
Manguera) the courts, so even persons who are not entitled CAN be granted bail)

Infractions of the Miranda Rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession As a necessary consequence of the nature of a bail bond, a person admitted to bail may
or admission made during the custodial investigation. The admissibility of other evidence, be prevented by the court from leaving the country. A bail bond is intended to make a
provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is person available anytime he is needed by the court. (Manotoc, Jr. v. CA)
not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation. (People v.
Malimit) Imposing bail in excessive amount could render meaningless the right to bail.
Setting the ball in the amount of the civil liability is excessive. (Yap v. CA)

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Limitations on right to bail: 6. strength of the evidence,
(1) person claiming the right must be under actual detention; 7. probability of appearing for the trial,
(2) Generally, the right is available only to criminal cases 8. forfeiture of bonds,
*** Bail does not grant the right to leave the country. 9. whether accused was a fugitive when arrested,
10. If under bond in another case. (Sunga v. Judge Salud)
There is no constitutional right to bail when the following conditions concur:
1. Accused is charge with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua Military under Court Marshall-A soldier under court martial does not enjoy the right to
2. Evidence against him is strong. (Magno v Abbas) bail because of the disciplinary structure of the military and because soldiers are allowed
** After conviction, bail is discretionary while the case is on appeal the fiduciary right to bear arms and can cause great havoc. Furthermore, tradition has
** Even though there is no constitutional right, bail may still be granted because the recognized the non-existence of the right to bail. Equal protection cannot be invoked
matter is discretionary with the court for good and valid reasons, unless there is a because it only applies to those who are equally situated. (Commendador v. de Villa)
statutory prohibition against it.
Excessive Bail- Where the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by
Since the loss of right (to bail) depends upon the quantum of evidence against him, the requiring a sum that is excessive. If the Constitution did not prohibit his, the right to bail
loss of the right can be determined only after a hearing. (Marcos v. Cruz) becomes meaningless. The sole permissible function of money bail is to assure the
accused's presence at trial, and declared that bail set at a higher figure than an amount
Extradition Cases- reasonably calculated to fulfill thus purpose is "excessive"(De La Camara v. Enage)
On December 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights in which the right to life, liberty and all the other fundamental rights of A judge cannot require a strictly cash bond and disallow an attempt to post a surety bond
every person were proclaimed. Thus, in Mejoff v. Director of Prisons, the SC, in granting for provisional liberty. The burden imposed by requiring a strictly cash bond can make the
bail to a prospective deportee, held that under the Constitution, the principles bail constitutionally excessive. (Almeda v. Villaluz)
set forth in that Declaration are part of the law of the land.
" The accused must invoke such right then bail hearing will commence following due
If bail can be granted in deportation cases, we see no justification why it should not also process
be allowed in extradition cases. Likewise, considering that the UDHR applies to
deportation cases, there is no reason why it cannot be invoked in extradition Duties of the Trial Judge in an Application for Bail
cases. After all, both are administrative proceedings where the innocence or guilt of the 1) Notify the prosecutor of the hearing for bail
person detained is not in issue. 2) Conduct a hearing for such application, even if prosecution does not present evidence
3) Decide if the evidence of guilt is strong
Obviously, an extradition proceeding, while ostensibly administrative, bears all earmarks 4) If the evidence is not strong, grant bail (Basco v. Rapatalo)
of a criminal process. A potential extradite may be subjected to arrest, to a (Evidence is strong when there is evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt)
prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to transfer to the demanding state
following the proceedings. Temporary detention may be a necessary step in the Proof evident/ presumption great
process of extradition, but the length of time of the detention should be reasonable. - Clear, strong evidence which leads a well-guarded dispassionate judgement to the
Records show that Munoz had been detained forover two (2) years without having conclusion that the offense has been committed as charged, that the accused is the
been convicted of anycrime. guilty agent, and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is
The time-honored principle of pacta sunt servanda demands that the Philippines honor its - Strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable
obligations under the Extradition Treaty it entered into with the Hong Kong Special probability of any other conclusion.
Administrative Region. However, it does not necessarily mean that in keeping with its - Test is not whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt but
treaty obligations, the Philippines should diminish a potential extraditees rights to life, rather whether it shows evident guilt or a great presumption of guilt. (People v.
liberty, and due process. More so, where these rights are guaranteed also by international Judge Cabral)
conventions, to which the Philippines is a party. We should not deprive an extraditee of
his right to apply for bail, provided that a certain standard for the grant is satisfactorily When Prosecution does not present evidence
met. (Government of HK v. Olalia) Even when the prosecutor refuses to adduce evidence in opposition to the application to
**Extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence, since bail is available only in criminal grant and fix bail, the court may ask the prosecution such questions as would ascertain
proceedings, a respondent in an extradition proceeding is not entitled to bail. He should the strength of the states evidence or judge the adequacy of the amount of bail.
apply for bail in the court where he will be tried. (United States v. Judge Puruganan, (Tolentino v. Judge Camanao, Jr.)
Recognizance A means, aside from bail, where an accused may obtain provisional
Factors determining bail: liberty.
1. Ability to post bail
2. Nature of the offense It is an obligation of record entered into before a court guaranteeing the appearance o
3. imposable penalty, the accused for trial. It is in the nature of a contract between the surety and the State.
4. character and reputation of the accused, (People v. Abner)
5. health of the accused,

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
SECTION 14: Presumption of Innocence
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. - Without conviction, a person is entitled to reinstatement.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proven, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to -BP 52: The filing of charges for the commission of such crimes before a civil court of
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a military tribunal after preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence of such fact
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have (disqualification) is invalid because the prima facie evidence makes the accused suffer as
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of if already guilty even before trial. (Dumlao v. Comelec)
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified Preventive suspension is not a penalty therefore no violation of right to be presumed
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. innocent
- There are some cases in which prima facie evidence establishes a rational connection to
A. Rights of the Accused guilt.
Due Process i.e. In Malversation, inability to produce the money entrusted to public official, although
" A judge may replace another judge in rendering decision even if he only partially prima facie evidence of guilt, may still be disproved by contradictory evidence (shifts the
heard the testimony of the witnesses burden of proof to the accused)
" The replacement judge may base his judgment completely on cold record before
him, in the same manner appellate courts do. (People v. Narajos) The State, having the right to declare which acts are criminal, within certain well-defined
" Since administrative agencies are not bound to follow the rules of criminal limitations, has the right to specify what act(s) shall constitute a crime, as well as what
procedure, they may not impose criminal penalties. (Scotys Department Store v. proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and then to put upon the defendant
Micaller) the burden of showing that such act(s) are innocent and are not committed with any
" due process = that procedure established by law to fully protect life, liberty, and criminal intent or intention. (US v. Luling)
property of the citizens of the State. (Nuez v. Sandiganbayan)
The provision of the Election Code that the filing of charges for the commission of crimes
Pre-arraignment duties of Judge before a civil or military court shall be prima facie evidence of the commission of an act of
1. Inform right to counsel before arraignment disloyalty to the state is void, as it condemns a person before he is finally heard.
2. Ask if he desires aid of counsel (Dumlao v. Comelec)
3. Grant reasonable time to do so
4. If none, court assigns a de officio The presumption of innocence may be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon
the experience of human conduct. Legislature may provide foe prima facie evidence of
Military Tribunal guilt of the accused and shift the burden of proof provided there be a rational connection
- SC, generally, has no supervisory authority over military courts. (Kuroda v. Jalandoni) between the facts provided and the ultimate fact presumed. (People v. Mingoa;
Banares v. CA)
-But by virtue of The National Security Code (PD 1498), the SC does not review decisions
of military commissions but of the Court of Military Appeals in cases appealed to the later Right to be Heard
by military commissions. (Buscayno & Sison v. Military Commissions) Elements:
1. The right to be present at the trial
- Military Tribunals cannot try civilians, even if civil courts are closed during Martial Law. 2. Right to counsel
Civilians are entitled to Judicial process. Military Tribunals belong to the Executive 3. Right to an impartial judge
department. (Olaguer v. Military Commission) 4. Right to confrontation
5. Right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness
- Once jurisdiction is acquired, a person who is dropped from the military can still be tried
by military tribunals. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the Right to be present- Trial in Absentia
parties but continue until termination of the case. (Abadilla v. Ramos) Scope of right to be present at the trial between arraignment and promulgation of
-a military commission or tribunal cannot try and exercise jurisdiction, even during the Condition for waiver waivable, provided that after arraignment, he may be compelled to
period of martial law, over civilians for offenses allegedly committed by them as long as appear for identification
the civil courts are open and functioning, and that any judgment rendered by such body
relating to a civilian is null and void for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the military Requisites of Trial in Absentia:
tribunal concerned. (Olaguer v. Military Commission) 1. Accused already arraigned
2. Duly notified of the trial
Due process of law demands that in all criminal prosecutions (where the accused stands 3. Failure to appear is unjustifiable
to lose either his life or his liberty), the accused shall be entitled to, among others, a trial. (Parada v. Veneracion)
The trial contemplated by the due process clause of the Constitution, in relation to the
Charter as a whole, is a trial by Judicial Process, not by executive or military process. Constitution now unqualifiedly permits trial in absentia even of capital offenses, provided
Military Commissions or Tribunals, by whatever name they are called, are not courts that (1)after arraignment he may be compelled to appear for the purpose of
within the Philippine judicial system. (Olaguer v. Military) Identification by the witnesses of the prosecution, or provided (2) he

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
unqualifiedly admits in open court after his arraignment that he is the person named as discretionary with the trial court, which discretion will not be interfered with in the
the defendant in the case on trial. absence of grave abuse. (Libuit v. People)
Reason for requiring the presence of the accused, despite his waiver, is, if allowed to be
absent in all the stages of the proceedings without giving the People's witnesses the There is no denial of the right to counsel when a counsel de oficio was appointed during
opportunity to Identify him in court, he may in his defense say that he was never the absence of the accuseds counsel ex parte. (People v. Larraaga)
Identified as the person charged in the information and, therefore, is entitled to an
acquittal. (People v. Presiding Judge) An accused who sought to withdraw his appeal to the SC should not be allowed on the
ground that he cannot afford counsel. He should be given counsel de oficio instead.
Trial in Absentia of the accused in case of his non-appearance after arraignment despite (People v. Rio)
due notice simply means that he thereby waives his right to meet the witnesses face to
face, among others. An express waiver of appearance after arraignment is of the same Right to be Informed
effect. However, such waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that the The object of a written accusation
prosecution is thereby deprived of its right to require the presence of the accused for 1. Furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will
purposes of identification by its witnesses, which is vital for the conviction of the accused. enable him to make a defense.
(Carredo v. People) 2. Avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against further
prosecution for the same cause.
Right to Counsel 3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they are
Counsel de Officio- may be given by the courts during arraignment. sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had. (U.S. v. Karelsen)
Stenographic notes showing that the courts failed to offer counsel to the accused is not " In order that this requirement be satisfied, facts must be stated, not conclusions of
enough to overturn a conviction. The presumption is that the courts followed proper law. The Complaint must contain a specific allegation of every fact and circumstance
procedure. necessary to constitute the crime charged (US v. Karelsen)

The right to counsel is necessary and indispensable: Criminal information must contain:
- During Custodial Investigation to prevent the use of duress and other undue influence in 1. name of the accused,
extracting confessions. 2. designation given to the offense by the statute,
- Even after the conviction of the accused; even when the case is on appeal. 3. acts or omission done constituting the offense,
- When accused gives a qualified plea. 4. Name of the offended party,
- When a sworn statement was extracted from the accused. 5. Approximate time and date of the commission of the offense
(People v. Holgado) 6. The place of the commission of the offense. (People v. Quitlong)

Duties imposed on the judge by this right: Offense not Alleged in the Information
If the defendant appears without counsel he must be informed by the court that he has a - A person cannot be charged more than that contained in the information. Qualifying
right to have counsel before being arraigned, and must be asked if he desires the aid of circumstances must be alleged in the information as well.
counsel. If he desires and is unable to employ counsel the court must assign counsel to i.e. only 2 counts of rape were alleged in the charges. Although 6 counts of rape were
defend him. This is a right which the defendant should not be deprived of, and the failure proven during trial, the accused can only be convicted on the 2 counts alleged in the
of the court to assign counsel or, after counsel has been assigned, to require him to information.
perform this duty by appearing and defending the accused would be sufficient cause for
the reversal of the case. (People v. Gimeno) The appellant cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with assault upon an
agent of a person in authority because the information filed against the appellant did not
Right to counsel is right to qualified counsel. (Meaning member of the Bar) allege the essential elements of assault that the accused then knew that, before or at the
time of the commission of the assault, the victim was an agent of the person in authority.
Pre-arraignment duties of the Judge (People v. Regala)
1. to inform the accused that he has the right to have his own counsel before being
arraigned; Disregarding the objectionable phrasing that would complex rebellion with murder and
2. after giving such information, to ask accused whether he desires the aid of counsel; multiple frustrated murder, that indictment is to be read as charging simple rebellion. The
3. if he so desires to procure the services of counsel, the court must grant him complaint of petitioners counsel that he is charged with a crime that does not exist in the
reasonable time to do so; and statute books, while technically correct so far as the court has ruled that rebellion may
4. if he so desires to have counsel but is unable to employ one, the court must assign not be complexed with other offenses committed on the occasion thereof, must therefore
counsel de oficio to defend him. (People v. Agbayani) be dismissed as a mere flight of rhetoric. The information does indeed charge the
petitioner with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion.
The duty to appoint a counsel de oficio is mandatory only at the time of arraignment. No (Enrile v. Salazar)
such duty exists where the accused has proceeded to arraignment and then trial with a
counsel of his own choice. (Libuit v. People) An accused charged under Arts. 293, 294, 296 of the RPC may be convicted under Art
335 provided that the information alleges facts under Art. 335. the real question or issue
At most, the appointment of a counsel de oficio in a situation like the present case is whether or not he performed the acts alleged in the information in the
[counsel ex parte consistently failed to appear for cross examination] would be manner therein set forth. If he did, it is of no consequence to him, either as a

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
matter of procedure or of substantive right, how the law denominates the crime which may rest upon a full and clear understanding of the facts. (People v. Manalo: when a
those acts constitute. (People v. Labado) judge intervened in the cross-examination)

An accused charged with only one offense of rape may not be convicted of six counts of Right to a Public Trial
rape. He cannot be held liable for more than what he was charged with. (People v. Trial is public when attendance is open to all irrespective of relationship to defendant.
Ranido) However, when the evidence presented may be characterized as offensive to decency or
public morals, the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives and counsel. (Garcia v.
Date and time of the Offense: A person need not specify the exact time of the Domingo)
commission of the offense unless time is an essential element of that offense.
-approximation sufficiently meets the requirement of law. This right serves as a safeguard against any attempt to employ our court as instruments
of persecution. The knowledge that every criminal trial is subject to contemporaneous
Right to Speedy Trial review in the forum of public opinion is an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial
Elements to be considered: power. (Garcia v. Domingo)
1. Length of delay
2. Reason for delay Right to Cross-Examine; meet witness face-to-face
3. The effort of the defendant to assert his right Purpose of right to confrontation:
4. Prejudice caused to the defendant 1. Afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of the witness by cross-
Speedy Disposition: Is usually relative to the circumstances of the particular case. 2. for the judge to observe the deportation of the witness.
Counting of delay after filing of the information
Exception to right of confrontation: (1) dying declaration (2) trial in absentia
NOTE: Dismissal on the grounds of speedy trial is the same as an acquittal and is a bar to NOTE: Right to Confrontation is not available in preliminary investigation.
another prosecution for the same offense (Double Jeopardy attaches) " Accused is not entitled as a matter of right to be present during the preliminary
Speedy trial means one that can be had as soon after indictment is filed as the examination nor to cross-examine the witnesses presented against him before his
prosecution can with reasonable diligence prepare for trial. arrest
" This right is available during trial which only begins upon arraignment
" Length of delay is certainly a factor to consider; but other factors must also be " there is no right to confrontation against informants who aided in the arrest or
considered such as the reason for the delay, effort of the defendant to assert his informants who are not witnesses
right, and the prejudice caused the defendant.
Section 7 of the Special Rules of Procedure prescribed for Sharias courts provide that if
The right of an accused to speedy trial should not be utilized to deprive the State of a the plaintiff has no evidence to prove his claim, the defendant shall take an oath and
reasonable opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. (People v. Gines) judgment shall be rendered in his favor by the Court. Should defendant refuse to take an
oath, plaintiff can affirm his claim under oath, in which case judgment shall be rendered
Relief in Postponements without good cause-Where a prosecuting officer, without good in his favor. Said provision effectively deprives a litigant of his right to due process. It
cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a denies ap arty his right to confront the witness against him and to cross-examine them. It
reasonable period of time, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in Mandamus should have no place even in the Special Rules of Procedure in the Shariah courts of the
to compel a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas country. (Tampar v. Usman)
corpus to obtain his freedom. (Conde v. Rivera)
Compulsory Process
Right to Impartial Trial " Compulsory process is not only to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf
Trial by Publicity- To have prejudice to due process, there must be allegation and proof but also to secure the production of evidence in his behalf.
that judges have been duly influenced by the publicity.
To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the Waiver of Rights
judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the barrage of " Presumption is always against the waiver
publicity. Petitioners cannot rely on the subliminal effects of publicity. (Webb v. de " Prosecution must prove with strongly convincing evidence that the accused willingly
Leon; People v. Teehankee) and voluntarily submitted his confession and knowingly and deliberately manifested
that he was not interested in having a lawyer assist him during the taking of that
Outside of pecuniary interest, relationship, or previous participation in the matter that confession. (People v. Jara)
calls for adjudication, there may be other causes that could conceivably erode the trait of
objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. If any such should make its appearance and prove SECTION 15: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in
difficult to resist, the better course for a judge is to disqualify himself. (Mateo Jr. v. cases of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it.
" Writ of Habeas Corpus writ directed to the person detaining another commanding
It is oft-times expedient or necessary in the due and faithful administration of justice for him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day
the presiding judge to re-examine a witness in order that his judgment when rendered and cause of his caption and detention, to do, submit to, and receive
whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- There must be a deprivation of personal liberty to begin with. o Testifying to a fact which would be a necessary link in a chain of evidence
" Privilege of the writ of habeas corpus right to have an immediate determination of to prove the commission of the crime
the legality of the deprivation of physical liberty.
" The writ is never suspended, it is the privilege f the writ that may be suspended. " Right applies only to testimonial compulsion, not object evidence (Villaflor v.
Requisites for Suspension of Privilege:
1. Existence of Actual invasion or Rebellion " One may not be compelled to produce a sample of his writing as evidence since it is
2. Public Safety requires the suspension something more than a moving body but also requires application of intelligence and
(does not come with suspension of Bail) attention (Beltran v. Samson)
- The President has the power to suspend the privilege, subject to the limits in Article
VII, sec. 18 Documentary Evidence:
- Compulsory production of private books and documents of the owner is compelling him
A respondent in a petition for habeas corpus have the burden to prove that they had to be a witness against himself.
indeed released the detainees if their invoking it as their defense. If the respondents have
not satisfied the burden, the case must be referred to the CHR. (Dizon v. Eduardo) - The privilege which exists as to private papers, cannot be maintained in relation to
records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of
SECTION 16: All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation and the
before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies. enforcement of restrictions validly established.

" NOTE: Speedy trial in Section 14 covers only the trial phase of criminal cases " Only natural persons are protected by this right; juridical entities, like corporations,
whereas Section 16 covers all phases of any judicial, quasi-judicial or are not.
administrative proceeding. " When right against self-incrimination may be asserted: from the moment he is asked
" Remedy if there has been unreasonable delay in the resolution of a case: Dismissal to testify.
through mandamus (Roque v. Ombudsman)
State Witness/ Accused Ordinary Witness
In the application of the constitutional guaranty of the right to speedy disposition of
Criminal Case He may refuse to take the witness
cases, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each
stand during the trial or custodial
case. Well-settled is the rule that the right to a speedy disposition of cases, like the right
to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, He may not refuse to
If on trial, one may refuse to
capricious, and oppressive delay. In the determination of whether or not that right has take the witness
been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are: the length of delay, stand.
the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, Civil Case He may not refuse to take the
and the prejudice caused by the delay. witness stand.
He may refuse to
He may refuse to answer
answer an
The concept of speedy disposition of cases is flexible and is consistent with reasonable incriminating question.
incriminating question
delay. (Caballero v. Alfonso, Jr.) Administrative He may refuse to take the witness
Case stand if it is criminal in nature like
The right to a speedy trial as well as other rights conferred by the Constitution or statute, forfeiture or deportation
except when otherwise expressly so provided by law, may be waived. It must therefore
be asserted. Thus, if there was a delay in the trial of the case, petitioners are not entirely A penal law that provides for a higher penalty against the accused who refuses to testify
without blame. or make statements that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt violates the right
against self-incrimination. The accused has a right to rely on the presumption of
Furthermore, the right of an accused to a speedy trial is guaranteed to him by the innocence until prosecution proves the elements of the crime charged against him.
Constitution but the same shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a reasonable Silence cannot be taken as proof against him. (US v. Navarro)
opportunity of fairly indicting criminals. A party's individual rights should not work against
and preclude the people's equally important right to public justice. (Guiani v. What is prohibited by the constitutional guarantee is the use of physical or moral
Sandiganbayan) compulsion to extort communication from the witness, not an inclusion of his body in
evide when it is material. Thus, substance emitting from the body of the defendant can be
SECTION 17: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. received as evidence. (US v. Tan Teng; US. vs. Ong; Villaflor v. Summers; US v. Ong
Siu Hong)
Purpose: To prevent perjury and confession under duress.
A drug test, urine test, pregnancy test, blood test, disease test does not fall under the
A. Guarantee against Self-Incrimination prohibition against self incrimination.
" When is a question incriminating?
o A crime may contain two or more elements, a question would be Writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of
incriminating if it tends to establish even one of the elements intelligence and attention, therefore, it constitutes an evidence against the
accused. Evidence that requires a positive intelligent act from the accused falls

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
under the right against self incrimination. (Beltran v. Samson; Bermudez v. Castillo) repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality
in a just, civilized and ordered society
Compelling a witness-accused to take the stand is a violation of his right against self
incrimination. His testimony may not be admissible against him. (Chavez v. CA, the Ford The power of the State to impose the death penalty is implied in section 1 of Article 3.
Thunderbird case) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Section 19 merely provides the limit to that plenary power of the State.
Compelling the accused in an Anti-graft proceeding to take the stand for the prosecution
against him against his will is a violation of his right against self-incrimination. (Cabal v. The congress has the power to restore the death penalty which merely requires that:
Kapunan, Jr.) (1) the congress define or describe what is meant by heinous crimes;
(2) that congress specify and penalize by death only crimes that qualify as heinous in
The right against self incrimination extends even to administrative proceedings which accordance with the definition or description set in the death penalty bill
possess a criminal or penal aspect. (Pascual Jr. v. Board of Medical Examiners) (3) the congress should be singularly motivated by compelling reason involving heinous
Right against self-incrimination can only be invoked in penal/criminal proceedings. It - The punishment of death by itself is neither cruel nor unusual. It is only cruel when it
cannot be invoked in a Legislative Inquiry. (Standard Chartered v. Senate) involves lingering death. (People v. Echegaray)

SECTION 18: SECTION 20: No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax.
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime Debt liability to pay money growing our of contract, express or implied
the party shall have been duly convicted A person may only be imprisoned for fraudulent debt if:
(1) The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime (estafa)
Involuntary Servitude every condition of enforced or compulsory service of one to (2) The debtor has been duly convicted
another no matter under what form such servitude may be disguised.
Poll Tax cedula tax or residence tax
Exceptions: (1) if such is punishment where the party is convicted, (2) in the interest of
national defense, citizens may be compelled to render personal military or civil service, BP 22
(3) a return to work order, (4) merchants and marines compelled to remain until the end The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of issuing a worthless check or
of voyage, (5) a posse comitatus a male at a certain age may be validly pressed into a check that is dishonored. It is not the nonpayment of an obligation that is penalized.
service for the apprehension of criminals through legitimate exercise of police power, (6) The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of
parental authority worthless checks. (People v. Lozano)

SECTION 19: SECTION 21: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons either shall constitute a bar to another prosecuton for the same act.
involving heinous crimes, the congress provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua " Under the first sentence, one can be charged for the same act if it constitutes at
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any least two different offenses under two statutes or two ordinances. But this does no
prisoner or detainee, or the use or substandard or inadequate penal facilities under apply to continuing crimes. Where 2 different laws defines 2 crimes, prior jeopardy as
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the other, although both offenses
arise from the same facts, if each crime involves some important act which is
A. Excessive fines not an essential element of the other.
" A fine is excessive when it is disproportionate to the circumstance of the offense
B. Cruel, Degrading or Inhuman Punishment " The second type of jeopardy, embodies an exception to the general proposition:
" Mere severity of the punishment does not make it cruel or unusual. It must be When an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under one
flagrantly and plainly oppressive, wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense will bar a prosecution under the other.
as to shock the moral sense of the community (People v. Estoista)
" The constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available as long as the acts,
" Guides to determine if it is cruel and unusual which constitute or have given rise to the first
1. Punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to human dignity offense, under a municipal ordinance, are the same acts which constitute or have give
2. It must not be arbitrary n rise to the offense charged under the statute.
3. It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society
4. It must not be excessive " Put a little differently, where the offenses charged are penalized either by different
sections of the same statute or by different statutes, the important inquiry relates to
Heinous Crime heinous for being grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which by the identity of offenses charge: the constitutional protection against double
reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are jeopardy is available only where an Identity is shown to exist between the
earlier and the subsequent offenses charged. In contrast, where one

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
offense is charged under a municipal ordinance while the other is penalized by a the court of origin for further proceedings, in order to determine guilt/innocence
statute, the critical inquiry is to the identity of the acts which the accused is said to of the defendant.
have committed and which are alleged to have given rise to the two offenses: the NOTE: a verbal dismissal is not final until written down and signed by the Judge.
constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available so long as the acts which
constitute or have given rise to the first offense under a municipal ordinance are the 3) The 2nd Jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first
same acts which constitute or have given rise to the offense charged under a statute.
FIRST JEOPARDY 1. Indictment Judgment of Acquittal immediately final. (decided on merits)
ATTACHED 2. Before a competent Court Judgment of Conviction final when the period for appeal has lapsed or sentence is
3. After arraignment served or right to appeal is waived or applied for probation
4. After a valid plea
" Defective complaint did not pace the Waiver or Estoppel
accused in first jeopardy -If an accused files to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, it is made via his own
FIRST JEOPARDY 1. By Acquittal waiver, therefore 1st jeopardy does NOT attach.
TERMINATED 2. Final Conviction - If there is consent to a provisional dismissal by the accused, jeopardy does not attach.
3. Dismissal without express consent of the accused No jeopardy in: ordinary appeal, fact-finding, certiorari, impeachment, legislation in aid of
4. Dismissal on the merits legislation
" Verbal dismissal is not final until written and
signed by a judge C. Rule on Supervening Facts
SECOND Same Evidence Test- whether the evidence needed for one
JEOPARDY case will support a conviction in the other. Supervening Event When the 2nd offense was not in existence at the time of the first
ATTACHED 2. Identical prosecution, for the simple reason that in such a case there is no possibility for the
3. In the attempted or frustrated form of another accused to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent.
4. Necessarily includes
5. Necessarily included Supervening FactWhere after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes for which the
defendant is responsible, which changes the character of the offense, and, together with
A. Attachment of Jeopardy the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, there is no double
The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused not against the peril of second jeopardy. To determine double jeopardy, it is essential to prove the existence of both
punishment, but against being again tried for the same offense. (People v. Ylagan) offenses during the pendency of the first prosecution. The second charge was inexistent
in this case at that time because the victim was still alive. There was a supervening fact
Requisites for Valid Defense of Double Jeopardy: in this case calling for the amendment of the information. (People v. Melo)
1) First Jeopardy must have attached prior to the 2nd
- Evidence of self-defense amounts to withdrawal of his original plea. But if reason for the amendment of the charge was already existing during the first
- A defective complaint does NOT attach jeopardy upon a grant of a motion to quash. examination but was not considered in the charge because of the negligence of the
- If the Court has NO jurisdiction, jeopardy shall not attach. examiner, then double jeopardy may attach because there is no Supervening event.
(People v. Buling)
2) First Jeopardy must have TERMINATED
D. Same Offenses
B. Termination of Jeopardy - Offenses need not be the same, but they should come from the same act.
Double Jeopardy cannot be invoked as a defense when the other case used as the basis BUT, when one act violates two different statutes or two different provisions of a statute.
of the first Jeopardy has not been terminated. (Bulaong v. People) If one act results in 2 different offenses, prosecution under one is not a bar to prosecution
under the other.
Termination shall bar:
a. Another prosecution for the offense charged. A special law prohibiting the illegal possession of firearms, even if it provides for a higher
b. Any attempt to commit the same, penalty if the weapon was used in a homicide/murder, does not create a first jeopardy to
c. Or frustration thereof, the prosecution for the homicide/murder. Double Jeopardy may only be invoked for the
d. Or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included same offense or identical offenses.
in the complaint/information.
However, an appeal by the prosecution from the Order of Dismissal by the trial court A single act may be an offense against two different provisions of law. If one provision
shall not constitute Double Jeopardy if: requires proof of an additional fact that is not included in the other, an acquittal or
1. Dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent of the defendant. conviction under one does not bar prosecution for the other. The accused cannot plead
2. The dismissal is not an acquittal based upon consideration of the evidence or one as a bar to another. (People v Tiozon)
the merits of the case.
3. The question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that No Appeal from Acquittal; Instances of Void Acquittal
should the dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to As a general rule, an order granting the accuseds demurrer to evidence
amounts to an acquittal. There are certain exceptions, however, as when the

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
grant thereof would not violate the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. For The EO is not a Bill of Attainder because it makes it perfectly clear that any judgment of
instance, when there is a finding that there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of guilt in the amassing acquisition of 'ill-gotten wealth' is to be handed down by a judicial
the trial court in dismissing a criminal case by granting the accuseds demurrer to tribunal, in this case the Sandiganbayan. (Virata v. Sandiganbayan)
evidence, its judgment is considered void.
(People v. Laguio) The appellate court may review dismissal orders of trial courts granting The retroactive application of RA 8249, which expands the jurisdiction of the
an accuseds demurrer to evidence. This may be done via the special civil action of Sandiganbayan, cannot be considered as an ex post facto law. It is not a penal law but a
certiorari under Rule 65 based on the ground of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to substantive law on jurisdiction. Only the retroactive application of a penal law can be
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Such dismissal order, being considered void judgment, does considered as an ex post facto law. (Lacson v. Executive Secretary)
not result in jeopardy. (Mupas vs. People)

E. Ordinance and Statute ARTICLE IV: CITIZENSHIP

If an act is punished by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar of to another prosecution for the same act. (People v. Relova) SECTION 1: the following are citizens of the Philippines
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
When the dismissal or termination of the case is brought about at the instance of the constitution
accused, there is no double jeopardy. (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizen of the Philippines
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of a filipino mother, who elected Philippine
F. Applied to impeachment cases: citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
Estrada cannot claim that the impeachment proceeding was terminated on its merits (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law
and that there was a failure to prosecute him. By resigning, he consented to the
termination of the impeachment case against him. (Estrada v Desierto) Citizenship personal and more or less permanent membership in a political
SECTION 22: No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted
Modes of Acquiring Citizenship:
Ex Post Facto Law 1. Jus sanguinis on the basis of blood;
(a) one which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was 2. Jus soli basis of place of birth;
innocent when done criminal and punishes such action, 3. Naturalization legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with the privilege of a
(b) which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed, native born.
(c) which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment, NOTE: We follow Jus sanguinis and naturalization.
(d) which alters the legal rules of evidence and receive less or different testimony than
the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, The mere fact that a person is born in a territory that follows the rule of Jus soli does not
(e) assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or mean that he is no longer a Filipino citizen, if he has one Filipino parent. At the most, it
deprivation of a right which when done was lawful, grants him dual citizenship as long as one of his parents is a Filipino. (Valles v.
(f) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has Comelec)
become entitled.
A natural born citizen of the Philippines who owns dual citizenship, but not dual
NOTE: It only prohibits retrospective penal laws (laws which impose a penalty or allegiance, (for instance, a natural born citizen, who by jus soli, also acquires alien
prescribes a burden equivalent to a penalty) citizenship) is deemed to have renounced his alien citizenship upon the filing of an
- DOES NOT apply to substantive laws like the expansion of jurisdiction of a certain court. application for a Certificate of Candidacy. (Valles v. Comelec, Mercado v. Manzano)

Bill of Attainder - a legislative act, which inflicts punishment without judicial trial (2) Children of Filipino Fathers/Mothers
a. There must be a law, For a child born under the 1973 or 1987 Constitution of a Filipina mother and an
b. Which imposes a penal burden on a named individual or easily alien father
ascertainable members of a group, (a) if the mother is still a citizenship at the time of birth, he is a natural born
c. imposed directly by the law without judicial trial. (b) if the mother has changed citizenship, needs to naturalize

A Law punishing any person who knowingly, willfully and by overt acts affiliates himself Respondent William Gatchalian follows the citizenship of his father Francisco, a Filipino, as
with, becomes or remains a member of the Communist Party or of any other similar a legitimate child of the latter. Francisco, in turn, is likewise a Filipino being the legitimate
subversive organization is not a Bill of Attainder because it does not dispense with child of Santiago Gatchalian who is admittedly a Filipino citizen whose citizenship was
Judicial determination of the guilt of the accused. Intent still needs to be proven in court. recognized by the Bureau of Immigration in 1960. Finally, respondent William Gatchalian
(People v. Ferrer) belongs to the class of Filipino citizens contemplated under Sec. 1, Article IV of the
Constitution, which provides: Section 1. the following are citizens of the Philippines: (1)
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. Its Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt. xxx (Gatchalian vs. Board of Commissioners)

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to citizenship. (Labo v Comelec)
Currently, Philippine nationality law provides that a person becomes a
Philippine citizen by birth if: In order for res judicata to apply, there must be:
1. That person was born on or after October 15, 1986 and at least one parent 1. a person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy
was a Philippine citizen on the birthdate; (Art. IV, Sec. 1 (1)) where said person is a party;
2. That person was born on or after January 17, 1973 and one or both parents 2. the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the
were Philippine citizens on the birthdate or the person elected Philippine resolution thereof, and;
citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the 1935 Constitution; (Art. IV, 3. the finding or citizenship is affirmed by this Court.
Sec. 1 (3)) (Gatchalian v. Board of Commissioners)
3. Or the person was born on or after May 14, 1935 and the father was a
Philippine citizen or, if the father was not, the mother was a Philippine SECTION 2: Natural born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
citizen and the person elected Philippine citizenship pursuant to the without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
provisions of the 1935 Constitution; (Co vs. HRET) who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3) section 1 shall be
4. Or that person was born on or after August 29, 1916 and prior to May 14, deemed natural born
1935 and at least one parent was an inhabitant and resident of the In repatriation, which is the relevant mode in this case, the recovery and restoration of
Philippine Islands and a Spanish subject on April 11, 1899, or that person the original nationality occurs. A natural born citizen who loses his citizenship, then
was an inhabitant and resident of the Philippine Islands and a Spanish applies for repatriation is deemed to be a natural born citizen. This is in spite of the
subject on April 11, 1899, except in certain specific cases. (Valles vs. provision of Section 2. (Bengson v HRET)
SECTION 3: Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by
-The illegitimate child of a Filipino father and an alien mother is a Filipino as long as " Naturalization laws allow cancellation of certificate if it is found to have obtained
paternity is clear because of jus sanguinis. There is no distinction between legitimate and fraudulently or illegally or that he violated conditions posed on him. This must
illegitimate children. (Tecson v COMELEC) be proven in a clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence
" How may citizenship be reacquired: Naturalization, Direct act of Congress and
(3) A Child born before Jan 17, 1973 to an alien father and a Filipino mother does not " Loss of Citizenship
have to elect Philippine Citizenship if his father has become a naturalized Filipino citizen o Naturalization
before he could reach the age of majority. He cannot elect another citizenship because his o Express renunciation
father was already a Filipino citizen. o Subscribing oath of allegiance to a foreign country
-He is deemed to be a natural born citizen by virtue of the curative nature Section 2 o Serving in the armed forces of an enemy country
because his mother is a Filipina, and he does not have to perform any acts to perfect his o Being a deserter of the AFP
Filipino citizenship. (Co v HRET) " Repatriation recovery of original citizenship.
o Desertion of the armed forces
(4) Naturalization o Service in the armed forced of the allied forces during the World War II
Kinds of Naturalization law: Naturalization may be by a Legislative Act (Law bestowing o Service in the armed forces of the US at any other time
citizenship to an alien), Administrative Act (RA 9139), or by a Judicial Act o Marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien
(Commonwealth Act 473) o Political and economic necessity
Procedural requirements: declaration of intention, filing of petition, hearing and initial
judgment, period of probation, rehearing and final judgment. A naturalized Filipino who continues to declare Portugese citizenship in commercial
Substantive requirements: born or residing in the country since birth, 18 years above, documents and subsequently obtains a Portugese passport is deemed to have expressly
GMC and believes in the principles of the constitution, must received primary and renounced his Philippine citizenship by continuing to represent himself as an alien. His
secondary education to a school recognized by DECS, must have known trade, business, acts are grossly inconsistent with naturalization. (Yu v. Defensor-Santiago)
profession or occupation, able to read, write, speak Filipino, must have mingled with
citizens and evinced desire to learn A Filipino who claims that he was naturalized as an American citizen in order to protect
himself from the Marcos regime is disqualified from running for office. Many Filipinos are
-Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and construed strictly in favor of the similarly situated in the States but did not find it necessary to abandon Filipino
government and against the applicant. citizenship. He may validly reacquire his citizenship through repatriation to qualify himself
-Naturalization requires both substantial and procedural compliance (Ong Chia v for office. (Frivaldo v. Comelec, 1989)
For elective officials, citizenship is required at the time he is proclaimed to office and at
A naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision the start of his term. Repatriation retroactively applies to the date of application.
rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be (Frivaldo v Comelec, 1996)
cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleading the
court upon any material fact. (So v. Republic)

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
A Filipino who naturalizes as an Australian, renouncing his Filipino citizenship in the NOTE: Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a
process, cannot validly claim that he is still a Filipino citizen because his acquisition of self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance.
Australian citizenship was improper. He has already validly renounced his Filipino
citizenship, and the validity of his naturalization is between him and Australia. Until he A Natural born Filipino who acquires alien citizenship by naturalization, then subsequently
takes the steps necessary to validly reacquire Philippine citizenship, he is disqualified applies for repatriation in order to retain/reacquire his Filipino citizenship is considered to
from running for office. (Labo Jr. v Comelec, 1989) fall under the term dual allegiance. (Jacot v. Dal)

Citizenship is an indispensible requirement for holding elective office. (Labo Jr v The rule in Mercado v. Manzano and Valles v. Comelec is inapplicable where a Filipino
Comelec, 1996) citizen acquires foreign citizenship through naturalization, then subsequently repatriates
under RA 9225. He is not considered to have renounced his allegiance to the foreign
Dual allegiance is different from dual citizenship. Dual Citizenship arises when, as a result country upon his filing of a COC. He must first take an oath expressly renouncing his
of the concurrent application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is foreign allegiance before he may be qualified to file for candidacy. (Jacot v. Dal)
simultaneously considered a national by the said states (e.g. jus soli, jus sanguinis) Dual
allegiance refers to the situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive A Dual Citizen who repatriates under RA 9225 is deemed to implicitly renounce his
act, loyalty to two or more states. It is the result of an individuals volition. The filing of allegiance to the foreign country. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to
such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. (Mercado v. Manzano) naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual
allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly
Requirements for repatriation under RA 8171 renounces his foreign citizenship. (AASJS-Calilung v Datumanong)
The implementing rules require a petitioner for repatriation to set forth, among others,
the reason/s why petitioner lost his/her Filipino citizenship, whether by marriage in case
of Filipino woman, or whether by political or economic necessity in case of [a] natural- ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE
born Filipino citizen who lost his/her Filipino citizenship. In case of the latter, such
political or economic necessity should be specified. SECTION 1: Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in
While it is true that renunciation of allegiance to ones native country is necessarily a the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at
political act, it does not follow that the act is inevitably politically or economically least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other
motivated as alleged by petitioner. Aside from economic and political refugees, there are substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
Filipinos who leave the country because they have committed crimes and would like to
escape from punishment, and those who really feel that they are not Filipinos and that Suffrage right to vote in election
they deserve a better nationality, and therefore seek citizenship elsewhere.
Thus, assuming petitioner Tabasa is qualified under RA 8171, it is incumbent upon him to To acquire new domicile: (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an
prove to the satisfaction of the SCN that the reason for his loss of citizenship was the intention to remain there, (3) intention to abandon the old domicile
decision of his parents to forfeit their Philippine citizenship for political or economic
exigencies. He failed to undertake this crucial step, and thus, the sought relief is Not qualified to vote: those sentence by final judgment to suffer imprisonment of not
unsuccessful. less than one year but shall automatically reacquire the right upon expiration of five years
after service of sentence, any person adjudged by final conviction of violating his
Repatriation is not a matter of right, but it is a privilege granted by the State. allegiance, insane or feeble-minded persons.
This is mandated by the 1987 Constitution under Section 3, Article IV, which provides
that citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law. The State has To be sure, the right of suffrage is not at all absolute. Needless to say, the exercise of
the power to prescribe by law the qualifications, procedure, and requirements for the right of suffrage, as in the enjoyment of all other rights, is subject to existing
repatriation. It has the power to determine if an applicant for repatriation meets the substantive and procedural requirements embodied in our Constitution, statute books and
requirements of the law for it is an inherent power of the State to choose who will be its other repositories of law. As to the procedural limitation, the right of a citizen to vote is
citizens, and who can reacquire citizenship once it is lost. If the applicant, like petitioner necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo: among
Tabasa, fails to comply with said requirements, the State is justified in rejecting the others, the process of registration.
petition for repatriation. (Tabasa vs. CA)
Proceeding from the significance of registration as a necessary requisite to the right to
SECTION 4: Citizens of the philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, vote, the State, in the exercise of its inherent police power, may then enact laws to
unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. safeguard and regulate the act of voters registration for the ultimate purpose of
conducting honest, orderly and peaceful election, to the incidental yet generally important
SECTION 5: dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be end, that even pre-election activities could be performed by the duly constituted
dealt with by law. authorities in a realistic and orderly manner. (Akbayan v. Comelec; the Court defending
Comelecs ban for registration 120 days before the election)
" Law has allowed dual citizenship. Dual citizenship is not dual allegiance
" Derivative Naturalization= citizenship derived from that of another as from a In election cases, the Court treats domicile and residence as synonymous
person who holds citizenship by virtue of naturalization terms, thus: "(t)he term "residence" as used in the election law is synonymous

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
with "domicile", which imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also 3. Constituent: the power to amend or revise the Constitution
personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such 4. Ordinary: power to pass ordinary laws.
intention." "Domicile" denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for
business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. Limits on Legislative Power:
1. Substantive: curtail the contents of law
A person who left the country to seek asylum abroad out of fear for his safety because of 2. Procedural: curtail manner of passing laws
the turbulent political climate cannot be considered to have abandoned his domicile. His
departure cannot be considered voluntary and without evidence of his intention to Plenary power is legislative
abandon the old domicile, he cannot be presumed to have adopted a new one. Legislatives power to legislate is plenary and can legislate on any subject matter. For this
(Romualdez v. RTC) reason, Congress cant make irrepealable laws as this would curtain the plenary power of
future Congress.
" Acquisition of a new domicile requires animus non revertendi and animus manendi:
1. Residence, bodily presence in new locality The plenary powers of the legislative are subject only to Constitutional limitations. Thus,
2. Intention to remain in the new locality we have the following examples of Constitutional limitations to legislative power:
3. Intention to abandon the old domicile A law passed by Congress cannot violate the Constitution
Congress cannot pass a law that amounts to a usurpation of executive or judicial
SECTION 2: The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of prerogatives
the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad. The Congress cannot pass a law that allows it to appoint officials in the executive department
Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without The Senate cannot initiate appropriation and tariff bills
the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing
laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the Non-delegability of Legislative Power
secrecy of the ballot. Legislative power is generally non-delegable under the principle of delegata potestas
non potest delegari. The sovereign people saw it fit to delegate legislative powers to
" Absentee voting allowed under RA 9189 Congress. Congress, therefore, cannot abdicate itself of this mandate by further
delegating this power to another body.
Under RA 9189, a Filipino immigrant who has been absent for 3 years is presumed to
have abandoned his residence. However, he may execute an affidavit of his intention to This principle however admits several exceptions in our jurisdiction:
return. This serves as implicit proof that he has not abandoned his domicile, and is 1. Delegation of legislative power to local governments
therefore does not violate the residency requirement of Section 1. (Macalintal v. 2. Delegation of rule-making power to administrative bodies
Comelec) 3. Constitutionally recognized exceptions

Dual Citizens under RA 9225 are allowed to vote through the Overseas Absentee voter Grant of Quasi-Legislative Power to LGUs and Administrative Bodies
law, without the need for residency. Section 2 Authorizes absentee voting and provides
an exemption from the residency requirement. (Nicolas-Lewis v. Comelec) Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro (1919)
Valid vs. Invalid delegation
"The true distinction, therefore, is between the delegation of power to make the law,
which necessarily involves a discretion as to what it shall be, and conferring authority or
ARTICLE VI: THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT discretion as to its execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance of the law. The first
cannot be done; to the latter no valid objection can be made."
Section 1: The legislative power shall be vested in the congress of the Philippines, which
shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, Discretion may be committed by the legislature to an executive department or official.
Except to the extent reserved to the people by provision on initiative and referendum. The legislature may make decisions of executive departments or subordinate officials
thereof, to whom it has committed the execution of certain acts, final on questions of
Legislative power is the authority to make laws and to alter or repeal them. fact. The growing tendency in the decisions is to give prominence to the "necessity," of
the case.
Bicameralism: Legislative delegation to local authorities
1. Allows a body with national perspective to check the parochial tendency of An exception to the general rule, sanctioned by immemorial practice, permits the central
representatives. legislative body to delegate legislative powers to local authorities.
2. Allows for more careful study of legislation.
3. Serves as training ground for national leaders.
Unicameralism: Simplicity of organization resulting in economy and efficiency, facility in Instances of Delegation allowed by the Constitution
pinpointing responsibility for legislation and avoidance of duplication. Congress may, by law, grant the President necessary powers during times of
war and national emergencies for a limited period and subject to restrictions.
Kinds of Legislative Power: This grant of power may include legislative power. [Art. VI, Sec 23(2)]
1. Original Legislative Power: possessed by sovereign people
2. Derivative Legislative Power: From sovereign delegated to legislative bodies.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, Parenthetically, it is recalled that this Court has accepted as sufficient standards public
and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, interest in People v. Rosenthal, justice and equity in Antamok Gold Fields v. CIR,
import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or public convenience and welfare in Calalang v. Williams, and simplicity, economy
imposts within the framework of the national development program of the and efficiency in Cervantes v. Auditor General, to mention only a few cases. In the
Government. [Art. VI, Sec. 28(2)] United States, the sense and experience of men was accepted in Mutual Film Corp.
v. Industrial Commission, and national security in Hirabayashi v. United States.
Valid Delegation of Legislative Power (Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA)
Necessity of delegating subordinate legislation
The validity of delegating legislative power is now a quiet area in the constitutional Public Interest as a standard
landscape. In the face of the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the [T]he term "public interest" is not without a settled meaning. "Appellant insists that the
increasing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many problems demanding delegation of authority to the Commission is invalid because the stated criterion is
its attention, resort to delegation of power, or entrusting to administrative agencies the uncertain. That criterion is the public interest. It is a mistaken assumption that this is a
power of subordinate legislation, has become imperative, as here. (SJS v. DDB, 2008) mere general reference to public welfare without any standard to guide determinations,
Requisites of a valid delegation of legislative power to administrative agencies: The purpose of the Act, the requirement it imposes, and the context of the provision in
It must be made clear that legislative power cannot be delegated to administrative question show the contrary. (People v. Rosenthal, 1939)
agencies. What is delegated is only rule-making power or law execution.
A legislative standard need not be expressed. It may simply be gathered or implied. Nor
They are allowed to: need it be found in the law challenged because it may be embodied in other statutes on
o Fill up the details of an already complete statute through the same subject as that of the challenged legislation. (Chiongbian v. Orbos, 1995)
implementing rules and regulations
o Or to ascertain facts necessary to bring a contingent law into actual Others based on case law:
operation. Standard Delegation
Law requiring every public utility to furnish Invalid delegation because it was to
How do you distinguish between delegation of law-making powers and the annually a detailed report of finances and general. (Compania general de tabacos v.
delegation of law execution powers? operations which the Board may from time Board)
There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of to time prescribe.
legislative power, viz., the completeness test and the sufficient standard test. If for any cause conditions arise resulting Invalid since no standard to guide the
in an extraordinary rise of palay, the Governor General as to what constitutes an
Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it Governor general can promulgate extraordinary rise in the price of palay.
leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have temporary rules and emergency measures (United States v. Ang)
to do is enforce it. fixing the price of cereals
Under the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or limitations in the A regulation penalizing electro fishing. Invalid as it was not one of the forms
law to map out the boundaries of the delegates authority and prevent the delegation punished in the Fisheries Act. It went
from running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of legislative beyond the scope. (People v. Maceren)
authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and RA 6640 decreed a wage increase higher Invalid since it expanded the law itself by
exercise a power essentially legislative. (Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA) than the CBA increase, DOLE then issued a providing such condition (Cebu Oxygen &
regulation which provided that salary Acetylene v. Sec. Drilon).
Elements of a Valid Delegation increases made pursuant to a CBA would
1. Completeness: not be considered as compliance with the
The Law must be complete in itself new law.
It must set forth therein the policy to be carried out or implemented by the Oil deregulation law provided two factors to Invalid because resulted in the rewriting of
delegate consider in effecting full deregulation of oil the standards set forth under the law.
industries. Another factor however was (Tatad v. Sec. Depart of Energy)
What can be delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not considered.
what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the latter subject is a prerogative of the Secretary of Agricultural by law was Valid since details were provided by law
legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the authorized to restrict the use of any fishing (Araneta v. Gatmaitan).
delegate. (Eastern Shipping Lines v. POEA) net or fishing device for the protection of
fish fry or fish eggs. Thus, a regulation
2. The law must fix a sufficient standard was passed prohibiting the use of trawls.
Limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable
LOI was issued requiring the use of Early Valid since the standard of safe transit
These will guide the delegate in the performance of his functions.
Warning Devices upon the roads is sufficient. Furthermore
The standards formulated need not be in precise language rather it can be drawn from
we accept the generally accepted principles
the declared policy of the law and from the totality of the delegating statute.
of international law (based on Geneva
It may even be embodied in other states on the same subject as the challenged law.
Convention on Roads Signs and Signals).
(Agustin v. Edu).
Sufficient standards of delegation of legislative power

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Law which authorized the Medical Board of Valid, the standard found in the laws Congress, in the guise of assuming the role of an overseer, may not pass upon the
Examinations to have tests for entrance to desire for the standardization and legality of IRRs by subjecting them to its stamp of approval without disturbing the
medical schools assailed because no regulation of medical education. (Tablarin calculated balance of powers established by the Constitution. The discretion to approve or
sufficient standards. v. Gutierrez). disapprove Rules and Regulations is a judicial power. (Abakada v. Purisima)

Contingent Legislation Rules and regulations may have the force of penal laws if:
1. the delegating statute itself must specifically authorize the promulgation of
While the power to tax cannot be delegated to executive agencies, details as to the penal regulations
enforcement and administration of an exercise of such power may be left to them, 2. The penalty must not be left to the admin agency but provided by the statute
including the power to determine the existence of facts on which its operation depends, itself.
the rationale being that the preliminary ascertainment of facts as basis for the enactment 3. The regulation must be published in the official gazette or a newspaper of
of legislation is not of itself a legislative function but is simply ancillary to legislation. general circulation.
(ABAKADA v. Ermita, 2005) - There should be designated limits of the penalty and it should not be left to the
discretion to the judge (penalty of imprisonment, in the discretion of the court
Laws may be made effective on certain contingencies. The legislature may delegate a is invalid because it is not for the court to fix the term of imprisonment where
power not legislative which it may itself rightfully exercise. The power to ascertain facts is no points of reference have been provided by the legislature- (People v.
such a power which may be delegated. There is nothing essentially legislative in Dacuycuy).
ascertaining the existence of facts or conditions as the basis of the taking into effect of a
law. (People v. Vera) Dagan v. PRC:
Phil. Racing Commission (PhilRaCom) made a directive pursuant to law to come up with
Where the effectivity of the law is made dependent on the verification by the executive of rules on how to check horses for Equine Infectious Anemia (EIA). The Philippine Racing
the existence of certain condition, it is not a delegation of legislative power. This is called Club and Manila Jockey Club then came up with their own rules. Race horse owners
contingent legislation. Congress provides the conditions required before a law takes contested the rules. The SC said that the delegation to PhilRaCom is valid pursuant to the
effect; the executive factually determines when those conditions exist. (ABAKADA v. need to control the security of racing. Also there was no delegation from PhilRaCom to
Ermita, 2005) Philippine Racing Club or Manila Jockey because what was issued was merely a directive
and it was up to them how they are to implement it, the duty and obligation to do such
Filling in details coming from their respective franchises.
There is no undue delegation of legislative power when there is only a grant of the power
to fill up or provide the details of legislation because Congress did not have the facility Sec. 2: The senate shall be composed of twenty-four senators
to provide for them. who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines,
as may be provided by law.
To a certain extent matters of detail may be left to be filled in by rules and regulations to
be adopted or promulgated by executive officers and administrative boards. As a rule, an Sec. 3: No person shall be a senator unless:
act of the legislature is incomplete and hence invalid if it does not lay down any rule or 1. He is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines
definite standard by which the administrative board may be guided in the exercise of the 2. On the day of the election is at least thirty-five years of age
discretionary powers delegated to it. (People v. Vera, 1937) 3. Able to Read and Write,
4. A Registered voter
Undue Delegation 5. And a Resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately
The legislature does seemingly on its own authority extend the benefits of the Probation preceding the day of the election.
Act to the provinces but in reality leaves the entire matter for the various provincial Day of the election means the day the votes are cast
boards to determine. If a provincial board does not wish to have the Act applied
in its province, all that it has to do is to decline to appropriate the needed amount for the Sec. 4: The term of office of the Senators shall be Six years and shall commence, unless
salary of a probation officer. This is a virtual surrender of legislative power to the otherwise provided by law, at noon on thirtieth of June (June 30) next following the
provincial boards. (People v. Vera) election. No senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary
renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption
Legislative Veto of Implementing Rules and Regulations in the continuity of his service for the full term for which he was elected.
After the enactment of a law, congressional oversight is limited to scrutiny and
investigation. Any action or step beyond that will undermine the separation of powers A person may serve as a senator for more than 2 terms, provided they are not
guaranteed by the Constitution. consecutive

Legislative veto is a statutory provision requiring the President or an administrative Sec. 5:

agency to present the proposed implementing rules and regulations of a law to Congress (1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and
which, by itself or through a committee formed by it, retains a right or power to fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall be elected from legislative
approve or disapprove such regulations before they take effect. It is unconstitutional districts apportioned among the provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the
basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
law, shall be elected through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and 7. Nominee must be able to contribute to the formulation and enactment of
sectoral parties or organizations. legislation that will benefit the nation.
(2) The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum of the total number It is for the COMELEC to decide WON a party list system is qualified or not.
of representatives including those under the party list. For three consecutive terms
after the ratification of this Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party-list Note: Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC (2013) has prescribed new guidelines for the
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election from the party-list system, eliminating the requirement of coming from the marginalized
labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, women, youth, and and underrepresented sectors for national or regional parties, as well as
such other sectors as may be provided by law, except the religious sector. sectoral parties of professionals, the elderly, women and the youth.
(3) Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact,
and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty Qualifications for Party List Representative:
thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative. 1. Natural born citizen of the Philippines
(4) Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a 2. Registered Voter
reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this 3. Resident of the Philippines for at least one year immediately preceding the day
section. of the election
4. Able to read and write
Classification of House Representatives 5. Bona fide member of the party or organization which he seeks to represent for
1. District Representatives at least 90d preceding the day of the election
a. Elected on the basis of geographic divisions called legislative districts 6. At least 25y of age on the day of the election
2. Party-List Representatives ( If youth sector he must be at least 25y old but not more than 30y of age on the day of
a. Elected through the party-list system the election If he turns 30y old during his term he will be allowed to continue).

Legislative Districts Party-list representation

Made by law and are based on proportional representation. The 20% allocation for party-list representatives is not mandatory. It merely provides the
Party List: ceiling as to the maximum number of party-list seats in Congress. (Veterans
Based on underrepresented and marginalized (not geographic based) Federation Party v. Comelec, 2000)
Registered national, regional and sectoral parties or organizations submit a list of
candidates in order of priority. Can Congress require parties to obtain at least 2% of the total number of votes
During congressional elections, such parties or organizations are voted for at large and before it can be entitled to a seat in Congress? Can Congress prohibit parties
the number of seats a party or organizations will get out of the 20% allocated for party- from holding more than 3 seats in the house?
list representatives will depend on number of votes garnered worldwide. Yes. Under a republican or representative state, all government authority emanates from
Details for operation of party list will be provided by law. the people, but is exercised by representatives chosen by them, but to have meaningful
representation, the elected persons must have the mandate of a sufficient number of
Guidelines for Party List: people. (Veterans)
1. The party or organization must represent the marginalized and
underrepresented. However, this 2% threshold was held unconstitutional in Banat.
2. Political parties who wish to participate must comply with this policy.
3. The religious sector may not be represented. (But a religious person/leaders What are the parameters of the Filipino Party-list system?
may be elected the prohibition is representation of a religious sect). 1. The twenty percent allocation
4. The party or organization must not be disqualified under RA 7941. The combined number of all party-list congressmen shall not exceed twenty
a. It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association percent of the total membership of the House of Representatives, including
organized for religious purposes; those elected under the party list.
b. It advocates violence or unlawful; 2. The two percent threshold
c. It is a foreign party or organization only those parties garnering a minimum of two percent of the total valid
d. It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political votes cast for the party-list system are qualified to have a seat in the
party, organization directly or indirectly House of Representatives.
e. Violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to Banat v. Comelec has removed the requirement of meeting the 2 percent
elections; threshold as it prevents the filling up of all the party list seats.
f. It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
g. It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or 3. The three-seat limit-each.
h. It fails to participate in the last two preceding elections OR fails to A qualified party, regardless of the number of votes it actually obtained, is
obtain at least two percentum of the votes cast under the party-list entitled to a maximum of three seats; that is, one qualifying and two
system in the two preceding elections for the constituency in which it additional seats.
has registered.
5. The party or organization must not be an adjunct of or a project organized or an 4. Proportional representation
entity funded or assisted by the government. the additional seats which a qualified party is entitled to shall be
6. Its nominees must comply with requirements of law computed in proportion to their total number of votes.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
Can MAJOR political parties participate in the party list system? workers. The sectors that lack well-defined political constituencies include
For purposes of the May 1998 elections, the first five (5) major political parties on the professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
basis of party representation in the House of Representatives at the start of the Tenth 5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that represent
Congress of the Philippines shall not be entitled to participate in the party-list system. the marginalized and underrepresented must belong to the marginalized and
(RA 7941) underrepresented sector they represent. Similarly, a majority of the members of
sectoral parties or organizations that lack well-defined political constituencies must
Under the Constitution and Republic Act (RA) 7941, political parties cannot be disqualified belong to the sector they represent. The nominees of sectoral parties or
from the party-list elections merely on the ground that they are political parties. (Ang organizations that represent the marginalized and underrepresented, or that
Bagong Bayani v. Comelec, 2001) represent those who lack well-defined political constituencies, either must belong
to their respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for their
However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling in Veterans respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or organizations
disallowing major political parties from participating in the party-list elections, directly must be bona-fide members of such parties or organizations.
or indirectly. (BANAT v. Comelec, 2009) 6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations shall not be disqualified if
some of their nominees are disqualified, provided that they have at least one
New Rule: The Supreme Court has now allowed MAJOR Political Parties to participate in nominee who remains qualified. (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, 2013)
the party-list elections. However, major political parties should participate in party-list
elections only through their sectoral wings. This is to encourage the aforementioned
major political parties to work assiduously in extending their constituencies to the How do we determine the number of seats for Party representatives?
marginalized and underrepresented and those who lack well-defined constituencies. 1. Determine the number of seats allocated for party list representatives. We do this by
(Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, 2013) dividing the total number of legislative Districts by 80% and multiplying the quotient
by 20%. The product is the total number of party-list seats.
2. The parties are then ranked on the basis of their percentage of their votes in
Can a party nominate a person who is not a member of the sector that is proportion to the total number of votes cast for party-list candidates.
represented by the party? 3. All Parties that garnered at least 2% of the votes qualify for 1 seat in Congress. This
It is not enough for the candidate to claim representation of the marginalized and is the FIRST ROUND
underrepresented, because representation is easy to claim and to feign. The party-list a. The total percentage of votes garnered by each party list candidate is
organization or party must factually and truly represent the marginalized and arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by the
underrepresented constituencies mentioned in Section 5, and the persons nominated by total number of votes cast for party-list candidates. (Part (A) in the table)
the party-list candidate-organization must be Filipino citizens belonging to marginalized 4. Those garnering sufficient number of votes according to the ranking in the first
and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties. (Ang Bagong Bayani v. round, shall be entitled to additional seats1 in proportion to their total number of
Comelec) votes. Then, one party-list seat is given to each of the parties next in rank until ALL
the additional seats are allocated. (SECOND ROUND)
New Ruling: The nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the a. First, multiply the percentage of votes of every qualified party2 by the
marginalized and underrepresented, or that represent those who lack well-defined number of remaining available seats. The product, rounded down, is the
political constituencies, either must belong to their respective sectors, or must have a number of additional seats that party is entitled to.
track record of advocacy for their respective sectors. The nominees of national and Illustration: [in the example table below, there are maximum of 55
regional parties or organizations must be bona-fide members of such parties or seats reserved for the party list system, less the number of
organizations. (Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, 2013) guaranteed seats already distributed (FIRST ROUND). There are 38
available seats for distribution].
So what are the NEW parameters for the Party-List system? So, for the Buhay Party-list, the formula would be: .0733 x 38 =
1. Three different groups may participate in the party-list system: 2.79 (Part (C))
(1) National parties or orgs (2) regional parties or orgs & (3) sectoral parties or orgs. b. Second, assign one party-list seat to each of the parties next in rank until
2. National parties/organizations and Regional parties/organizations do not need to all available seats are completely distributed.
organize along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any marginalized and 5. FINALLY, ensure that each party is entitled to no more than 3 party-list seats.
underrepresented sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they register under the NOTE:
party-list system and do not field candidates in legislative district elections. A - in case of fractional seats they shall be disregarded as the law does not provide for
political party, whether major or not, that fields candidates in legislative district rounding off.
elections can participate in party-list elections only through its sectoral wing that can - Thus, in declaring the 2% threshold unconstitutional, you dont limit the allocation of
separately register under the party-list system. The sectoral wing is by itself an seats to those who garnered two percent only (because as said, in the old formula the
independent sectoral party, and is linked to a political party through a coalition. additional seats will be given to parties if they get additional 2% so if 3% votes only
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be marginalized and underrepresented %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
or lacking in well-defined political constituencies. It is enough that their principal 1
The remaining available seats for allocation as additional seats are the maximum seats
advocacy pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sector. The sectors reserved under the Party List System less the guaranteed seats for the 2-percenters.
that are marginalized and underrepresented include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, 2
Those that received at least 2% of the votes.%

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
was received by a party they only get 1 seat, no more additional seats because they since it creates a new province (which necessarily results in the creation of a legislative
didnt get another 2% to be entitled to another seat). district a power only the congress can exercise).

Thus, reapportionment may be done through a special law or through a city charter.


Votes Rec.
votes for party


Addtl Seat

rec. seats)
integer (Total
B +C in whole

Congress cannot delegate the power to create a province or city because this power
inherently involves the power to create a legislative district. A delegate[ARMM] cannot

alter the very composition of the Congress by creating legislative districts (or


Cities/provinces which are in turn, entitled to legislative representation). (Sema v.

Comelec, 2008)
1 Buhay 1,169,234 7.33% 1 2.79 3 N.A.
2 Bayan 979,039 6.14% 1 2.33 3 N.A Rules on Apportionment
Muna 1. It must be in accordance with the number of the respective inhabitants and on the
3 CIBAC 755,686 4.74% 1 1.80 2 N.A basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.
4 APEC 621, 171 3.89% 1 1.48 2 Na 2. Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact,
(etc. it just keeps going like this until zero na yung additional seats) and adjacent territory.
TOTAL 17 38 left 3. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province,
shall have at least one representative.
Why did Banat abandon the formula used in Veterans for determining additional 4. Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a
seats? reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this
The allocation of additional seats according to the 2% threshold is unconstitutional section.
because it makes it mathematically impossible to achieve the maximum number of
available party list seats when the number of available party list seats exceeds 50. Thus, Aquino v. Comelec (2010)
it frustrates the attainment of the 20% permissive ceiling provided in the Constitution. There is no specific provision in the Constitution that fixes a 250,000 minimum population
The SC therefore struck down the two percent threshold only in relation to the that must compose a legislative district.
distribution of additional seats as found in RA 7491 since it is an unwarranted obstacle to
the full implementation of Sec. 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution to attain the broadest The Mariano case limited the application of the 250,000 minimum population
possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the HR. requirement for cities only to its initial legislative district. In other words, while Section
5(3), Article VI of the Constitution requires a city to have a minimum population of
The 2 percent threshold is therefore struck down only in relation to the distribution of the 250,000 to be entitled to a representative, it does not have to increase its population by
additional seats. another 250,000 to be entitled to an additional district. The Court said that proportional
Additional Issues: representation is NOT just a numerical concept but includes other factors which creates
1. The reason behind the three-seat cap was in order to prevent any party from balance in territory.
dominating the election.
2. The constitution does not mandate the filling up of the entire 20% allocation of Navarro v. Ermita (2011)
party list system, but we cannot allow the continued existence of a provision in Requirements for creating a city or a province:
the law which will systematically prevent the constitutionally allocated 20% party
list representatives from being filled. 1. Average annual income, of not less than Twenty million pesos
2. And either of the following requisites:
Apportionment (i) Contiguous territory of at least two thousand (2,000) square km; or
Apportionment - the determination of the number of representatives which a State, (ii) Population of not less than 250,000 inhabitants
county or other subdivision may send to a legislative body. It is the allocation of seats in
a legislative body in proportion to the population; the drawing of voting district lines so as Provided, That the creation thereof shall not reduce the land area, population, and income
to equalize population of the original unit or units at the time of said creation to less than the minimum
requirements prescribed herein.
Reapportionment - the realignment or change in legislative districts brought about by $ The territory need not be contiguous if it comprises 2 or more islands or is separated
changes in population and mandated by the constitutional requirement of equality of by a chartered city or cities, which do not contribute to the income of the province.
representation. $ The requirement on land area shall NOT apply where the city proposed to be
created is composed of 1 or more islands.
Gerrymandering: is the formation of one legislative district out of separate territories for $ The average annual income shall include the income accruing to the general fund,
the purpose of favoring a candidate or a party. It is not allowed. exclusive of special funds, trust funds, transfers, and non-recurring income.

Sema v. Comelec: Bagabuyo v. Comelec (2008)

The creation of cities and provinces necessarily includes the creation of legislative districts The Constitution and the Local Government Code expressly require a plebiscite to carry
which only congress can do. Thus the creation of the ARMM resolution is unconstitutional

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
out any creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of boundary of a local The requirement of a mandatory drug testing for Senatorial candidates [and other
government unit. No plebiscite requirement exists under the legislative apportionment candidates whose qualifications are prescribed by the Constitution] amounts to an
or reapportionment provision. imposition of additional qualifications to the office. Such an imposition is unconstitutional.
(SJS v. DDB, 2008)
In other words, the creation of legislative districts does NOT need confirmation by
plebiscite, IF it does not involve the creation of a local government unit. NOTE: Congress is only precluded from imposing additional qualifications to elective
officials whose qualifications are prescribed by the Constitution itself. However, for other
Sec. 6: No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a elective candidates whose qualifications are only found in law (i.e. Governors, Mayors,
natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty- etc.) Congress plenary power allows it to modify their qualifications by law. Thus,
five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a Congress was actually within its power to require drug testing for candidates for other
registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a elective positions. This was even reflected in the Ratio of SJS v. DDB. However, the
period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. Supreme Court categorically declared the provision as unconstitutional without distinction
as to its operation in the dispositive portion of the case.
Congress CANNOT increase or decrease the qualifications provided under the
Constitution. Sec. 7: The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three
years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of
Bengson v. HRET and Cruz (2001) June next following their election. No Member of the House of Representatives shall
There are three modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any
former citizen: (1) by naturalization, (2) by repatriation, and (3) by direct act of length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his service for
Congress. the full term for which he was elected.

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This means that a A member of the House may serve for more than three terms as long as it is not
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a successive.
naturalized Filipino citizen. If he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his
Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. Farias v. Executive Secretary:
An elective official who files his certificate of candidacy is not considered ipso facto
Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC: resigned, an appointive official however who files a COC is deemed ipso facto resigned.
In this case the Court clarified what is meant by residence. What is required is not just (The old rule used to be that any elective official whether local or national would be
temporary residence but domicile. A persons domicile is his domicile of origin and if a deemed ipso facto resigned if he runs for any other office other than the one he is
person never loses his domicile then the one year requirement is not relevant because holdingthis has ben repealed).
one is never deemed to left the place. But if a person loses his domicile and seeks to re-
establish domicile then the one year requirement becomes relevant. In this case records Term v. Tenure: Term is the period that an official is entitled to hold office while tenure is
show that although she registered in a different place, and many residences in order to the period during which the official actually holds the office.
follow her husband she still had close ties with her domicile, she still had birthdays there,
her ancestral home was there, etc. Sec. 8: Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the
Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May.
For domicile there must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The
purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; Sec. 9: In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special
the change of residence must be voluntary and the residence at the place chosen for the election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the
new domicile must be actual. Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the
unexpired term.
To establish new domicile of choice, personal presence in the place must be coupled with
conduct indicative of that intention. While with residence all that is required is bodily If there is a vacancy it is NOT MANDATORY to have a special election, the matter is left to
presence in a given place. the discretion of congress.
Lucero Case: In case of special elections there is no need to fill in unless Congress
Domino v. Comelec: Domino had a lease contract in Sarangani which is indicative of decides to. However, if there is a failure of elections Congress MUST fill in the vacancy.
intent to reside there but does not show the kind of permanency required to prove
abandonment of ones original domicile. Also Domino still a registered voter of Quezon
City, although it is not conclusive it is a strong presumption. Tolentino v. COMELEC:
Guingona was appointed by GMA as VP and thus there was a vacancy in senate. Under
the law the special elections to fill such would be held during the next election. COMELEC
Maquera v. Borra: then made the candidate with the 13th highest vote to fill that seat. However it was
Congress cannot pass a law requiring that candidates for the House must post a bond of contended that COMELEC never gave notice regarding it and thus should not be
one years salary. Such amounts to a property qualification which is contrary to the social considered. The SC held that the failure to give notice is not a problem since there was
justice provision in the constitution. already a law, which provides that the next election would have that and thus
the date of when the special elections is deemed fix. The people are charged

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
with knowledge as to what the law is and when and where the next elections are. It is opportune to wipe out the lingering misimpression that the call of duty conferred by
the voice of the people is louder than the litany of lawful restraints articulated in the
Sec. 10: The salaries of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be Constitution and echoed by jurisprudence the mandate of the people yields to the
determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the Constitution which the people themselves ordained to govern all under the rule of law.
expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives approving such increase. Jimenez v. Cabangbang:
Plaintiffs sought recovery from Cabangbang for damages based on an open letter claimed
Increase in emoluments seem to be permitted since the prohibition is with regard to the to be libelous. Claimed that as a member of the HR at the time such speech was made he
immediate increase of compensation/salaries. However, if we follow the spirit of Philconsa is immune. The SC held however that a letter does not fall under the immunity but the
v. Mathay the prohibition is an absolute ban on any form of direct or indirect increase of message of the letter was actually not libelous because it did not really say that they
salary. were liable for anything rather that they were being used as tools in a corrupt plan.

Congress may increase limit on allowances for travel and office since such do not form Pobre v. Defensor-Santiago:
part of the salary or compensation, allowances take effect immediately. During a speech delivered in Congress, Santiago said she wanted to spit on Chief Justice
Panganibans face and she criticized the courts. The SC ruled such was privileged since it
Sec. 11: A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses was pursuant to opening the eyes of people for further investigations in anomalies in the
punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the judiciary. But the SC went further to say that senate should have disciplined her and
Congress is in session. reminded her of her duty to respect the courts.
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. Sec. 12: All Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests. They
The phrase not more than 6 years has been interpreted to mean not more than prision shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the
correctional in its maximum period. The privilege against arrest is available only when filing of a proposed legislation of which they are authors.
congress is in session whether regular or special and whether or not the legislator is
actually attending a session (thus not available when Congress is in recess). Full Disclosure of financial and business interests.
Notification ONLY of a potential conflict of interest that may arise from the filing of
The privilege of speech granted to Congress is limited only to forums other than Congress proposed legislation authored by them.
but does not protect the speaker from disciplinary authority of the Congress.
- It is an absolute protection against suits for libel. Sec. 13: No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any other
- Speech or debate includes utterances made in the performance of official office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
functions, such as speeches delivered, statements made, votes casts, as well as thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries,
bills introduce and other acts done in the performance of official duties. during his term without forfeiting his seat.
- Not necessary that congress is in session for privilege of speech, what is Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the
essential is that the utterance constitutes legislative action. emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected.
- Privilege extends to agents of assemblymen, provided that their agency consists
precisely in assisting the legislator in the performance of legislative action. 1st sentence A member of Congress may resign in order to accept an appointment in
the government before the expiration of his term. [i.e., Se. Guingona as VP of FPGMA]
People v. Jalosjos:
Jalosjos was charged with statutory rape and claimed that he should be allowed to attend 2nd sentence - Even if a member of congress resigns his seat he cannot accept an
sessions in Congress to give voice to people of Zamboanga since they elected him. The appointment to an office which may have been created, or its emolument increased,
SC ruled that there is no reason to exempt him from imprisonment as the immunity does during his term.
not apply to him rape being a crime punishable for more than 6 years. Furthermore, to
allow him to attend session five times a week would be a mockery to the justice system. Liban v. Gordon:
The voters of Zamboanga knew when they voted him that he had limitations due to the The Philippine Red Cross is not a GOCC but is a private corporation performing a public
imprisonment also there is no substantial distinction between a Congressman and any function thus the fact that Gordon is the chairman does not mean that he forfeits his seat
other person that would give him preferential treatment from other detainees. in the Senate.

Sec. 14: No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may personally appear
Trillanes v. Pimentel as counsel before any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
Allowing a detained member of Congress to attend congressional sessions and committee and other administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested
meetings for five (5) days or more in a week will virtually make him a free man with all financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
the privileges appurtenant to his position such an aberrant situation not only elevates his Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any
status to that of a special class, it also would be a mockery of the purposes of the government-owned or controlled corporation, or its subsidiary, during his term of office.
correction system. 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

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members
There are three prohibitions under Sec. 14: present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record4 of its
1. Personal appearance as counsel before any court, quasi-judicial body, or tribunal proceedings.
2. Direct or indirect financial interest in any government contract, franchise or special (5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the
privilege during his term. other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which
a. The contracts referred to here are those involving "financial interest," that the two Houses shall be sitting.
is, contracts from which the legislator expects to derive some profit at the
expense of the government. Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona:
b. Provision uses the word term and not tenure Senators Fernan and Tatad contested for the Senate Presidency. Fernan won by a vote of
3. Intervention in any matter before any office of the Government for his pecuniary 20 to 2. With the agreement of Sen. Santiago, Tatad manifested that he was assuming
benefit or where he may be called upon to act on account of his office. the position of minority leader explaining that those who had voted for Fernan comprised
a. The last sentence restores an inhibition originally imposed by the 1935 the majority while those who voted for him were minority. However LAKAS senators
Constitution. Although this provision has never been judicially interpreted, chose Guingona as minority leader. Fernan recognized G as such and so S and T filed
it may be surmised that the rule shall apply to the case, say, of the before the SC. The SC held first that they had power and jurisdiction to inquire whether
chairman of the committee on banks serving as legislative consultant for a the Senate or its officials committed violation of the Constitution or exercised GAD in
private bank. ( exercise of their functions. Art. 6, Sec. 16 is explicit on the manner of electing a Senate
President and House speaker but silent on the manner of electing other officers. The
NOTE: The prohibition is PERSONAL to lawyer- congressmen and does NOT apply to the method therefore should be left to internal rules prescribed by the Senate. On grounds of
law firm of which they may be members. respect for separation of powers, courts may not intervene in the internal affairs of the
Puyat v. De Guzman (1982)
An assemblyman cannot indirectly fail to follow the Constitutional prohibition not to Avelino v. Cuenco (Quorum)
appear as counsel before an administrative tribunal like the SEC, by buying a nominal When the constitution states that a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum,
amount of share of one of the shareholders, after his appearance as counsel therein was the House does not mean all the members. There is a difference between a majority of
contested. all the members of the House and a majority of the House the latter requiring less
number. Thus an absolute majority of 12 members of the senate is a constitutional
If the legislator is not trying to indirectly appear as counsel for another, can he majority of the Senate for purpose of a quorum.
intervene in a case representing himself? It can be argued that he can.
1 senator who was in the US was not considered in determining the quorum. This is
Sec. 15: The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its because he is beyond the jurisdiction of Senates compulsory powers.
regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session A controversy over the selection of Senate president is not within the jurisdiction of the
for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its Supreme Court, in view of the separation of powers, the political nature of the
next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President controversy and the constitutional grant to the Senate of the power to elect its own
may call a special session at any time. president, which power should not be interfered with nor taken over by the judiciary. The
selection of the presiding officer of the Philippine Senate affects only the senators
Regular Session BEGINS: once a year on the 4th Monday of July. themselves who are at liberty at any time to choose their officers, change or reinstate
ENDS: discretionary upon congress but not later than thirty days them.
before the opening of its next regular session.
Special session called by the President is done when legislature is in recess. No longer Datu Abas Kida v. Senate (2011)
any significant distinction for determining what the legislature may consider. A law that requires a 2/3 supermajority vote by Congress to amend or repeal is
unconstitutional. The 2/3 vote is more than what the Constitution demands and gives the
Sec. 16: law the character of an irrepealable law. The requirement would restrain the plenary
(1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, powers of future Congress to amend, revise or repeal the laws it had passed.
by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such
other officers as it may deem necessary. Arroyo v. De Venecia (Internal Rules and Discipline)
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller The validity of a law on tax on cigarettes and beer was assailed as invalid because they
number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent failed to get the yeas and nays and didnt listen to objections of Senator Arroyo when he
Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide. gave them contrary to the provisions of the Rules of the HR and under the Constitution
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for the HR can make their own internal rules and a violation of such is a violation of the
disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, Constitution. The SC ruled that such were merely internal rules and are procedural with
suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not which the Court has no concern. They may be waived or disregarded by the legislative
exceed sixty days. body. (Enrolled Bill: Under the Enrolled Bill Doctrine, the signing by the Speaker and the
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal3of its proceedings, and from time to time publish President of the Senate and the certification of the secretaries of both houses are
the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and conclusive of its due enactment and is a conclusive presumption except when there is

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
less complete. 4
more complete.%

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
necessity to go behind and consult the journal to determine whether certain provisions of Osmena v. Pendatum:
a statute have been approved. In this case however, there is no necessity to go behind The Court may not exercise judicial review over the disciplinary action taken by Congress
the enrolled bill doctrine and so the Court will respect the certification that the bill has against one of its members because the Congress is the sole judge of what disorderly
been duly passed.) behavior is.

Osmea v. Pendatum: What is the Enrolled Bill doctrine?

Osmea during a privileged speech made accusations about the president and saying that The signing of a bill by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President iand the
he was corrupt. The Senate however considered it disorderly conduct and suspended him. certification of the secretaries of both Houses of Congress that such bill was passed are
He claimed privileged immunity. He now claims that he cant be suspended because conclusive of its due enactment. (Arroyo v. De Venecia)
under the House rules, can only suspend after the speech before taking up other matters
and in this case it was done after other matters were taken up etc. The Court however The respect due to a co-equal department requires the courts to accept the certification of
ruled that the rules adopted by the legislature are subject to revocation, modification, the presiding officer as conclusive assurance that the bill so certified is authentic.
waiver, at the pleasure of the legislature. Mere failure to conform with internal rules will (Casco)
not invalidate the procedure. (With regard to parliamentary immunity, although they may
be immune from courts they are not immune from disciplinary action that the legislature But if the officers withdraw their certification, then the presumption is no longer
may take against them to discipline them). conclusive.

US v. Pons (Duty to keep Journals and Records) Sec. 17: The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral
In this case Pons was being punished for Act 2381 which penalized illegal importation of Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and
opium. Pons claims that the law is invalid because it was made after the session of qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of
congress was closed. He claimed that although the date of adjournment of the Senate nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by
was on February 28. The law was enacted after midnight or on February 29, he claimed the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of
that they stopped the clock etc. so that the records would reveal that the law was made Representatives, as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
when the legislature adjourned sine die (on the day itself) at 12 midnight of Feb. 28. Thus representation from the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under
he seeks to introduce extraneous evidence to prove all of this. The SC said that the courts the party-list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall
may NOT go behind the legislative journal for the purpose of determining the date of be its Chairman.
adjournment when such journals are clear and explicitly that they adjourned sine die.5
LEGAL IMPLICATION The Journal is conclusive upon the Courts. 9 members 3 Justices of the SC, designated by CJ
- Remaining 6, members of Senate/HoR chosen based on proportional rep.
Casco Philippines v. Gimenez:
Casco claims that under the law which exempts from taxation urea formaldehyde the Election Contest: When a defeated candidate challenges the qualification and claims the
raw materials of urea and formaldehyde are also exempt based on the intent of the seat of a proclaimed winner, the respective Electoral Tribunal of each House is the sole
senate that can be supported by the statements made during the deliberation of the bill. judge (Not The SC nor the House of Congress, nor the COMELEC). --- The COMELEC en
The SC said that the enrolled bill which uses the term urea formaldehyde is conclusive banc shall determine only the authenticity and due execution of the certificates of
upon the courts as regard the tenor of measure passed by congress and approved by the canvass.
President. If there is a mistake in the printing etc the remedy is amendment or curative - Each house has the power to defer the oath-taking of members until the final
legislation not judicial decree. The wording of the enrolled bill prevails. determination of election contests filed against them.
GR: The wording in the Enrolled Bill prevails over the Journals.
Ex: If the signatures on the enrolled bill are not complete or are retracted then there is Electoral Tribunals:
no enrolled bill per se, and you can go to the journals to check. - Once the candidate or the party-list nominee has been proclaimed, taken his
oath, and assumed office, the COMELECEs jurisdiction over election contests
ABAKADA v. Ermita: relating to his qualifications ends
The Bicameral Conference Committee was meant to harmonize conflicting provisions The jurisdiction transfers from the COMELEC to the Electoral Tribunal once the
between the Senate and the House. In this case the following were agreed on (basically winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath and assumed office as a
Senate amendments were adopted): member of the HR. [NOTE: The power of Electoral Tribunals is NOT limited to
1. What rate, 10% or 12%? To bridge the gap they decided 10% first then when issues involving constitutional qualifications only.]
other circumstances present 12%. - Although the HRET decides when a party-list REPRESENTATIVE is qualified, the
2. WON VAT on electricity should not be passed on consumers? Denied. No pass on COMELEC has the authority to decide WON a party-list organization is qualified.
provision. - Congress does not possess the powers to regulate even the procedural matters
3. In what manner should input tax credits be limited? 70% credit rather than of the Electoral Tribunals. The Tribunals are Independent Constitutional bodies.
100%. - Litigants that appear before HRET are bound to know and are expected to
4. NIRC provision on corporate income should be amended. properly comply with the procedural requirements laid down by the tribunal and
thus there is no grave abuse of discretion if the Electoral Tribunal applies its
rules strictly (Garcia v. HRET).
When a legislative body adjourns without appointing a day in which to appear or assemble

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- The power of ETs as sole judge of contests also gives them the power to make Daza v. Singson (political alignments):
their own rules meaning that they can have different periods then those The House of Representatives may change its representation in the Commission on
provided in election code. Appointments to reflect at any time the changes that may transpire in the political
alignments of its membership. It is understood that such changes must be permanent
Vera v. Avelino (Definition of election contest) and do not include the temporary alliances or factional divisions not involving severance
A Comelec gave a report to the president that there was terrorism and violence in Nueva of political loyalties or formal disaffiliation and permanent shifts of allegiance from one
Ecija and therefore the elections there didnt really reflect the true and free expression of political party to another.
popular will. Senate then made a resolution because of this and petitioners were not yet
allowed to sit in congress. Petitioners filed a case with the electoral tribunal to make them Coseteng v. Mitra (proportional representation):
sit. The SC said that it is the Congress itself and not the Electoral Tribunal doesnt have The apportionment of the House membership in the Commission on Appointments is done
jurisdiction because they only handle election contests meaning that the person who files on the basis of proportional representation of the political parties therein. Even if KAIBA
wants to replace someone. An Electoral Tribunal was given the power to decide all were to be considered as an opposition party, its lone member represents only .4% or
contests (as compared to all the powers of the House or Senate as the sole judge of the less than 1% of the House membership, hence, she is not entitled to one of the 12 House
election.). This definition of relating only to contests limits it to when there are protests seats in the Commission on Appointments. To be able to claim proportional membership
to a return or candidate, if it is not given this limitation then they would have the power in the Commission on Appointments, a political party should represent at least 8.4% of
to look into even the election of members who have not been protested. If a member of the House membership
the House inquires into the qualification of any member it is NOT A CONTEST because
there is no ousting to replace the person and this power is no longer with the Electoral Guingona v. Gonzales (undue reduction of representation of another party):
tribunal but a House power itself. LDP was entitled to 7.5 members to sit on COA and was rounded to 8 giving Romulo of
The Senate has the power to postpone or suspend their assumption into office, they may LDP a seat. LP was entitled to 0.5 seats so given 1 seat. The SC said such rounding off is
suspend a member and the courts cannot order that they be reinstated etc otherwise it violative of the Constitution because it should be based on proportional representation.
would amount to judicial predominance. And if you use this method you increase your share by decreasing other partys
representation. Furthermore, the Constitution doesnt mandate that all 12 seats in
Abayon v. HRET (Jurisdiction over party-list) COA should be filled. The may perform their functions as long as there is the required
The right to examine the fitness of aspiring nominees and, eventually, to choose five from quorum, usually a majority of its membership. The COA may perform its functions and
among them after all belongs to the party or organization that nominates them. But transact its business even if only ten senators are elected thereto as long as a quorum
where an allegation is made that the party or organization had chosen and allowed a exists.
disqualified nominee to become its party-list representative, the resolution of the dispute
is taken out of its hand. It is for the HRET to interpret the meaning of this particular Sec. 19: The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be
qualification of a nominee the need for him or her to be a bona fide member or a constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall
representative of his party-list organization. have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission
on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its
Bondoc v. Pineda (Non-partisan) Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to discharge such powers and functions as are
As judges, the members of the tribunal must be non-partisan. They must discharge their herein conferred upon it.
functions with complete detachment, impartiality, and independence even independence
from the political party to which they belong. Hence, disloyalty to party and breach of - The commission must act on all appointments submitted to it within thirty
party discipline are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member of the tribunal. session days from submission.
- The commission shall decide by a majority vote.
Membership in the HRET may not be terminated except for a just cause, such as, the - The Commission can meet and act ONLY when Congress is in session.
expiration of the members congressional term of office, his death, permanent disability,
resignation from-the political party he represents in the tribunal, formal affiliation with Sec. 20: The records and books of accounts of the Congress shall be preserved and be
another political party, or removal for-other valid cause. A member may not be expelled open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the
by the House of Representatives for party disloyalty short of proof that he has formally Commission on Audit which shall publish annually an itemized list of amounts paid to and
affiliated with another political group. expenses incurred for each Member.

Sec. 18: There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President of the Sec. 21: The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees
Senate, as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve Members of the House of may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of
Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be
the political parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system respected.
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 Senate Blue Ribbon v. Judge Majaducon:
days of the Congress from their submission. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote Anyone except the President and Justices of the Supreme Court may be summoned.
of ALL the Members. Neither the can the court prevent a witness from appearing in such hearings.

Function of the COA: legislative check on appointing authority of the President.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Senate v. Ermita 2. In accordance with its duly published rules of procedure
$ Even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized 3. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
exemptions to the power of inquiry, which exemptions fall under the rubric of respected.
executive privilege.
The rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected, including the right to
$ When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for department due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against ones self.
heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are
not exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. Inquiry must be in aid of Legislation
De la Paz v. Senate:
$ Section 1 of E.O. 464, in view of its specific reference to Section 22 of Article VI De la paz went with a delegation representing the government in Moscow. On their way
of the Constitution and the absence of any reference to inquiries in aid of back he was found in the airport with 45k Euros, he was allowed to return to the
legislation, must be construed as limited in its application to appearances of Philippines but the money was confiscated. Upon his return he was subpoenaed by the
department heads in the question hour contemplated in said Section 22, but Senate Committee for investigation. He claimed lack of jurisdiction because it did not
could not be applied to appearances of department heads in inquiries in aid of involve foreign relations and so they could not pass upon it. The SC ruled however it did
legislation. The requirement to secure presidential consent under Section 1, involve foreign relations since under Senate rules all matters relating to relations of the
limited as it is only to appearances in the question hour, is valid on its face. Philippines with other nations will be under the jurisdiction on the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations. The Moscow incident could create other consequences toward the
$ When an official is being summoned by Congress on a matter which, in his own Philippines and its relation to other countries and our obligation with the international
judgment, might be covered by executive privilege, he must be afforded community to comply with our international obligations (UNCAC, etc.). Furthermore, The
reasonable time to inform the President or the Executive Secretary of the Senate has decided that legislative inquiry will be jointly conducted with the Blue Ribbon
possible need for invoking the privilege. Committee (Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations). The
Senate Rules mandate the Blue Ribbon to conduct investigation on all matters relating to
Executive privilege malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office by officers of the govt. The
It has been defined as the power of the Government to withhold information from the petitioner as a retired PNP General and a member of the delegation had with him millions
public, the courts, and the Congress, as well as the right of the President and high-level of public funds.
executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and
ultimately the public. Romero v. Estrada (2009):
A legislative investigation in aid of legislation and court proceedings have different
Nature of the information is controlling purposes. On-going judicial proceedings do not preclude congressional hearings in aid of
Executive privilege, whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is legislation.
recognized only in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. The Court has no authority to prohibit a Senate Committee from requiring persons to appear
extraordinary character of the exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily and testify before it in connection with an inquiry in aid of legislation in accordance with
against executive secrecy and in favor of disclosure. its duly published rules of procedure.

Privilege as to a class of persons Neri v. Senate:

Privilege is properly invoked in relation to specific categories of information and not to $ The right of Congress or any of its committees to obtain information in aid of
categories of persons. legislation cannot be equated with the peoples right to public information.
$ The right to information must be balanced with and should give way, in appropriate
Claims of priviliege cases, to constitutional precepts.
Due respect for a co-equal branch of government demands no less than a claim of $ Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for the claim of
privilege clearly stating the grounds therefor privilege with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the information which the
privilege is meant to protect.
Guidani v. Senga: $ The power of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is broad. To be valid,
The President has constitutional authority to prevent a member of the armed forces from it is imperative that it is done in accordance with the Senate or House duly published
testifying before a legislative inquiry, by virtue of her power as commander-in-chief, and rules of procedure and that the rights of the persons appearing in or affected by such
that as a consequence a military officer who defies such injunction is liable under military inquiries be respected.
justice. At the same time, any chamber of Congress which seeks the appearance before it
of a military officer against the consent of the President has adequate remedies under law The elements of presidential communications privilege:
to compel such attendance. The President may be commanded by judicial order to compel (Citing US v. Nixon)
the attendance of the military officer. 1. The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable
presidential power.
Requisites of Inquiry under Sec. 21 2. The communication must be authored or solicited and received by a close advisor
Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be
The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not in operational proximity with the President.
absolute or unlimited. The investigation must be: 3. The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that
1. In aid of legislation may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
information sought likely contains important evidence and by the unavailability of Sec. 22: The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of
the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. 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
The Senate cannot immediately cite a witness in contempt when that witness is not departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the
unwilling to testify, but refuses to answer a question upon orders of the president to Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their scheduled
invoke executive privilege. The Senate must first rule on the validity of the claim of appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover
privilege. matters related thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires
To cite him in contempt without determining the validity of the claim is arbitrary and and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall be conducted in executive
violative of his rights session.

Power to punish a person under investigation Is the oversight function under Sec. 22 the same as a Question Hour?
Arnault v. Nazareno: No. In the context of a parliamentary system of government, the question hour has a
Since the Court has no power to determine what legislation to approve or not to approve, definite meaning. It is a period of confrontation initiated by Parliament to hold the Prime
it cannot say that the information sought from a witness which is material to the subject Minister and the other ministers accountable for their acts and the operation of the
of the legislative inquiry is immaterial to any proposed or possible legislation. It is not government, corresponding to what is known in Britain as the question period. It cannot
within the province of the Court to determine or imagine what legislative measures be imposed in a Presidential system of government because of the separation of powers. 6
Congress may take after the completion of the legislative investigation. What is the difference between Congressional inquiries in aid of legislation
under Sec. 21 and inquiries pursuant to its oversight function under Sec. 22?
Limit to imprisonment for contempt When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads are implementing
There is no sound reason to limit the power of the legislative body to punish for contempt the statutes which it has issued, its right to such information is not as imperative as that
to the end of every session and not to the end of the last session terminating the of the President to whom, as Chief Executive, such department heads must give a report
existence of that body. While the existence of the House of Representatives is limited to of their performance as a matter of duty. But when the inquiry in which Congress requires
four years, that of the Senate is not so limited. The Senate is a continuing body which their appearance is in aid of legislation, the appearance is mandatory. The oversight
does not cease to exist upon the periodical dissolution of the Congress or of the House of function of Congress may be facilitated by compulsory process only to the extent that it is
Representatives. There is no limit as to time to the Senate's power to punish for contempt performed in pursuit of legislation. (Senate v. Ermita)
in cases where that power may constitutionally be exerted.
Under Sec. 21, ANYONE, except the President and SC Justices, may be summoned.
Why does Congress have the power to cite witnesses in contempt? Whereas under Sec. 22, as alter egos of the President, they may NOT appear without the
The power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and appropriate Presidents permission [this exemption applies only to heads of Depts. And NOT to
auxiliary to the legislative function. A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively everyone who has cabinet rank].
in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to
affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite Sec. 23:
information - which is not infrequently true - recourse must be had to others who do (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled,
possess it. Experience has shown that mere requests for such information are often voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or
complete; so some means of compulsion is essential to obtain what is needed. (Arnault v. (2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the
Nazareno) President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless
Sabio v. Gordon: sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next
An inquiry in aid of legislation was conducted due to losses incurred by the PHILCOMSAT adjournment thereof.
because of improprieties in the operation of their Board of Directors. Sabio of the PCGG
was asked to attend but he declined due to prior commitment and invoked Sec. 4 of EO 1 (In connection with Art. 7, s. 18) Here you are just stating a fact: the existence of a state
that said that no member of the Commission will be required to testify in any proceeding of war NOT declaring a state of war. To declare war it is not lodge in Congress but with
concerning matters within its official cognizance. The SC held that Section 4(b) directly the executive power which holds the sword of the nation.
repugnant with Article VI, Section 21 and thus cannot be upheld. Section 4(b) exempts The president can exercise commander in chief powers even if Congress doesnt declare.
the PCGG members and staff from the Congress' power of inquiry. This cannot be What if Congress doesnt make a law? Then the president can act under Art. 7, s. 18.
countenanced. Nowhere in the Constitution is any provision granting such exemption. The (DAVID V. ARROYO reconciles it).
Congress' power of inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the
administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It even Sec. 23(2) Is an example of constitutionally sanctioned delegation of Emergency powers
extends "to government agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are by Congress. Congress may even delegate legislative powers to the president if
within the power of Congress to regulate or even abolish." PCGG belongs to this class. necessary.

Congress may keep a contumacious witness in detention until the legislative body ceases
to exist upon its final adjournment.
But see Neri vs. Senate, which said that Sec. 22 pertains to the power to conduct a question
hour, the objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress oversight function.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary (3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the
$ Section 18, Article VII does not expressly prohibit the President from declaring a procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.
state of rebellion.
$ The President, in declaring a state of rebellion and in calling out the armed forces, is (4) A special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and
merely exercising a wedding of her Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers. shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to
These are purely executive powers, vested on the President by Sections 1 and 18, be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal therein.
Article VII, as opposed to the delegated legislative powers contemplated by Section
23 (2), Article VI. (5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the
Ampatuan v. DILG Secretary (2011) Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by
The President did not proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency in the law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their
three places mentioned. The calling out of the armed forces to prevent or suppress respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations.
lawless violence in such places is a power that the Constitution directly vests in the
President. There is no need for congressional authority to exercise the same. (6) Discretionary funds appropriated for particular officials shall be disbursed only for
public purposes to be supported by appropriate vouchers and subject to such guidelines
Sec. 24: All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public as may be prescribed by law.
debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. (7) If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass the general
appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the
1. Appropriation: Money set aside from public general appropriations act, IRA. preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until
2. Tariff/Revenue Bill: Proposal to earn money for government. the general appropriations bill is passed by the Congress.
3. Increase of Public Debt: increase ceiling of borrowings to be able to loan money. Garcia v. Mata: An appropriations Act providing that after the approval of this Act, and
4. Bills of local application: Conversion of city, naming street. when there is no emergency, no reserve officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
5. Private Bill: Relate to private person (citizenship law, etc.). may be called to a tour of active duty for more than two years during any period of five
consecutive years, is void for being a rider.
Tolentino v. Secretary of finance
It is not the lawbut the revenue billwhich is required by the Constitution to originate Transfer of Funds
exclusively in the House of Representatives. It is important to emphasize this, because a P.D. No. 1177 empowers the President to indiscriminately transfer funds from one
bill originating in the House may undergo such extensive changes in the Senate that the department, bureau, office or agency of the Executive Department to any program,
result may be a rewriting of the whole. The possibility of a third version by the conference project or activity of any department, bureau or office included in the General
committee will be discussed later. At this point, what is important to note is that, as a Appropriations Act or approved after its enactment, without regard as to whether or not
result of the Senate action, a distinct bill may be produced. To insist that a revenue the funds to be transferred are actually savings in the item from which the same are to
statuteand not only the bill which initiated the legislative process culminating in the be taken, or whether or not the transfer is for the purpose of augmenting the item to
enactment of the law must substantially be the same as the House bill would be to which said transfer is to be made. It is void and unconstitutional. (Demetria v. Alba)
deny the Senates 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. Sec. 26:
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be
What is the purpose of Sec. 24? expressed in the title thereof.
The main purpose of the bills emanating from the House of Representatives is to bring in
sizeable revenues for the government to supplement our countrys serious financial (2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings
problems, and improve tax administration and control of the leakages in revenues from on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its
income taxes and value-added taxes, and the Senate, approaching the measures from Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the
the point of national perspective, can introduce amendments within the purposes of those necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the
bills. (ABAKADA v Ermita) last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall
be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
Sec. 25:
(1) The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for One subject in title is mandatory: But the rule should be interpreted liberally rather than
the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and strictly or technically. As long as it is embraced in the general subject and it is germane
manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law. to the subject.
1. To prevent hodge podge legislation
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless 2. To prevent surprise or fraud on legislature
it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or 3. Fairly appraise people thru publication.
enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
What is the process:
- 1st Reading: Only title sent to deliberations committee.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
- 2nd Reading: debate and deliberations.
- 3rd Reading: title and no more amendments and voting. - Doctrine of inappropriate provision: a provision that is constitutionally
inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it is
Q: When the President certifies a bill what may be disregarded? not an appropriation or revenue item (refers to riders).
The bill still has to pass three readings, however, the certification dispenses with the - Generally an item veto is only for appropriation, revenue and tariff bills.
requirement that these be done on separate days. The three readings can be done in ONE - If you veto a provision in an ordinary bill considered as if you vetoed the
DAY. whole thing.
- A condition in an appropriation bill may not be vetoed without vetoing the items
NOTES: to which it is attached [i.e., the specific item to which the condition refers to].
Requiring every bill passed to embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the
title thereof is aimed against the evils of the so- called omnibus bills and log-rolling Executive Impoundment: Impoundment simply means refusal of the President to
legislation as well as surreptitious and/or unconsidered encroaches. spend funds already allocated by Congress for a specific purpose.
The requirement that the subject of an act shall be expressed in its title is not a mere rule
of legislative procedure, directory to Congress; it is mandatory. But the title of the bill is Sec. 28:
not required to be an index to the body of the act, or to be comprehensive as to cover (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a
every single detail of the measure. progressive system of taxation.
The constitutional provisions relating to the subject matter and titles of statutes should
not be so narrowly construed as to cripple or impede the power of legislation. (2) The Congress may, by law, authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and
If the title fairly indicates the general subject, and reasonably covers all the provisions of subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and
the act, and is not calculated to mislead the legislature or the people, there is sufficient export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the
compliance with the constitutional requirement. framework of the national development program of the Government.

Sec. 27: (3) Charitable institutions, churches and personages or convents appurtenant thereto,
(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually,
President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be
the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the exempt from taxation.
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, (4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a
it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise majority of all the Members of the Congress.
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 The general limitation on the power to tax is that it should be exercised only for a public
by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in purpose.
its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it - Since it affects property rights it is also subject to due process and equal
originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a protection clauses of the Constitution.
law as if he had signed it.
When is a tax Uniform?
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an A tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the
appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to subject of it is found. Uniformity means that all property belonging to the same class shall
which he does not object. be taxed alike. (CIR v. Lingayen Gulf)

When do the yeas and nays have to be taken: When is a system of taxation Progressive?
1. Upon last and third readings of a bill. It is progress when the rate increases as the tax base increases (for equitable distribution
2. At the request of one-fifth of the Members present. of wealth).
3. In repassing of a bill over the veto of the Presidents veto.
Does Sec. 28 prohibit regressive or indirect taxes?
The effect of an invalid veto is as if there was no veto at all considered inaction on the No. Although the Constitution requires Congress to evolve a progressive system of
Presidents part and so it becomes a law. taxation, this is only a directive, just like the directive to give priority to the enactment
of laws for the enhancement of human dignity and the reduction of social, economic and
An item veto does not refer to an entire section imposing a particular kind of tax but political inequalities. These provisions are put in the Constitution as moral incentives to
rather to the subject of the tax and the tax rate. legislation, not as judicially enforceable rights. (Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance)
- An item is an indivisible some of money dedicated to a stated purpose, NOT
some general provision of law which happens to be put into an appropriation Can Congress delegate the power to tax?
bill. No. But it can delegate the power to determine when the required conditions for the tax
- Riders - are provisions that do not relate to a specific appropriation, but is to take effect arise. See contingent legislation.
more in the nature of a general provision of law. It is not for an appropriation
bill and is better contained in a separate law. CIR v. Santos:

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
The court cannot subscribe to the theory that the tax rates of other countries should be virtue of the law, as and when they shall become due. No uncertainty arises in executive
used as a yardstick in determining what may be the proper subjects of taxation in our implementation as the limit will be the exact amounts as shown by the books of the
own country. The State is free to select the subjects of taxation, and it has been Treasury.
repeatedly held that inequalities which result from singling out of one particular class for
taxation, or exemption infringe no constitutional limitation. Sec. 30: No law shall be passed increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as provided in this Constitution without its advice and concurrence.
Abra v. Hernando and Roman Catholic Bishop: Congress can increase the SCs appellate jurisdiction if the SC agrees to it.
For the exemption of lands, buildings and improvements, they should not be exclusively
but also actually and directly used for religious charitable or educational purposes. There
must therefore be proof of the actual and direct use of the lands, buildings and Sec. 31: No Law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
improvements for religious or charitable (or educational) purposes to be exempt from
taxation. Sec. 32: The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and
referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and
Cir v. CA: enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or
The YMCA is not an educational institution within purview of constitution for it to be local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per
granted the exemption. Furthermore, the claim for exemption from income tax has no centum of the total number of registered voters, of which very legislative district must be
basis because the Constitutional exemption applies only to property taxes. represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters.

John Hay v. Lim: Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec

Under RA 7227 only the Subic SEZ is exempt from taxes, the extension of the same by The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the
the President to the John Hay SEZ finds no support therein. system of initiative requires an implementing law from Congress
The system of initiative on the Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the
Lung Center v. QC: Constitution is not self-executory.
60% of its beds are used exclusively for charitable purposes. Only such portion will be Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6735, the people are not accorded the power to directly
exempt from tax, those leased out to private entities however are not exempt from real propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution through the
property tax. system of initiativethey can only do so with respect to laws, ordinances, or
Sec. 29:
(1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation Lambino v. Comelec
made by law. The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
(2) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people
directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, o First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal;
sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, other o second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or a petition
dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the
orphanage or leprosarium. petition, or attached to it, and if so attached, the petition must state the fact of such
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a A signature requirement would be meaningless if the person supplying the signature has
special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund not first seen what it is that he or she is signing.
was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people
the general funds of the Government. the full text of the proposed amendments is most likely a deception

Is a law providing automatic debt service appropriation valid even if the Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like
actual/exact amounts are not stated in the law? altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances, and
Yes. The legislative intention [of such a law] is that the amount needed should be there is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as
automatically set aside in order to enable the State to pay the principal, interest, taxes when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution.
and other normal banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness incurred as
guaranteed by it when they shall become due without the need to enact a separate law Amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering
appropriating funds therefor as the need arises. the basic principle involved; Revision generally affects several provisions of the
Although the subject presidential decrees do not state specific amounts to be paid, constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being
necessitated by the very nature of the problem being addressed, the amounts amended.
nevertheless are made certain by the legislative parameters provided in the decrees. The
executive is not of unlimited discretion as to the amounts to be disbursed for debt
servicing. The mandate is to pay only the principal, interest, taxes and other normal
banking charges on the loans, credits or indebtedness, or on the bonds, debentures or
security or other evidences of indebtedness sold in international markets incurred by

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
ART.VII. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT of the laws is only one of the powers of the President. It also grants the President other
powers that do not involve the execution of any provision of law, e.g., his power over the
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. country's foreign relations. Powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to
the specific powers enumerated in the Constitution. Executive power is more than the
I. Executive Power sum of specific powers so enumerated. One of the recognized powers of the President
- Ceremonial functions: the President remains and will always be the ceremonial granted pursuant to this constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc
head of the govt and must take part with real or apparent enthusiasm in a committees. This flows from the obvious need to ascertain facts and determine if laws
range of activities [Head of State] have been faithfully executed. The President has the obligation to ensure that all
- The Cabinet: an institution that is extra-constitutionally created, consisting of executive officials and employees faithfully comply with the law.
the heads of departments who through usage have formed a body of
presidential advisers who meet regularly with the President. They possess no II. Executive Privilege
authority over the president and serve at his pleasure and behest. US VS. Nixon:
The issue in this case is whether President Nixon can claim absolute privilege in order to
Marcos vs. Manglapus [residual power]: quash a subpoena duces tecum issued against him by the district court in a criminal
Marcos, in his deathbed, signified his wish to return to the Philippines to die. But then proceeding. The court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the
President Aquino, considering the dire consequences to the nation of his return at a time need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an
when the stability of government is threatened by Marcos supporters and communist absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all
movements, and when the economy is just beginning to rise and move forward, has circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers
stood firmly on the decision to bar the return of Marcos and his family. Does the President calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on
have the power to do so? YES. The Supreme Court held that the enumerations found the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such
under Art. 7 are not exclusive. Executive power is more than the sum of specific powers conversations, a confrontation with other values arises.
so enumerated. It has been advanced that whatever power inherent in the government
that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. In other words, as applied to A President's acknowledged need for confidentiality in the communications of his office is
the present issue, even if the right to impose restrictions for entrance into ones country general in nature, whereas the constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in
is not expressly granted under Article 7 of the Constitution, it is a residual power of the a criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular criminal
President by virtue of Art.7 Sec.1. Moreover, the President has the obligation under the case in the administration of justice. Without access to specific facts a criminal
Constitution to protect the people, promote their welfare and advance the national prosecution may be totally frustrated.
When the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a
Q: What are the Express Powers of the President? criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail
1. The power to appoint over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal
2. The power to enter into treaties justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific
3. The power to grant pardon need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
4. Commander-in-Chief powers
5. Chief of State power (control over the Executive Department) Senate vs. Ermita:
6. Power to impose customs/tariff duties Invitations were sent to various officials regarding the North Rail Project by the Senate
7. The power to execute/implement laws Blue Ribbon Committee. A day before said officials could appear before Senate, the
8. The power to submit the budget to Congress. President issued EO 464 which in effect prohibited said officials from appearing before
Congress without the consent of the President. Said EO is being assailed as
Pontejos vs. Ombudsman [power to grant immunity to state witnesses]: unconstitutional for being violative of the publics right to information and the Senates
Acting on a complaint against the HLURB, the OMB found probable cause on the power of inquiry.
complaint against Pontejos and Atos, but they also ruled that Atos should be extended
immunity from criminal prosecution and discharged as state witness. Atos was merely a E.O. 464:
subordinate who could have acted only upon the prodding of Pontejos. Also, her Sec. 1: All heads of Executive departments shall secure the consent of the President prior
testimony was necessary to build a case against Pontejos. The decision on whether to to appearing before Congress. When the security of the State or public interest requires
prosecute and whom to indict is executive in character. Essentially, it is not a judicial and the President so states in writing, the appearance shall only be conducted in
prerogative.The fact that an individual had not been previously charged or included in an executive session.
information does not prevent the prosecution from utilizing said person as a witness. Sec. 2(a): Executive privilege covers all confidential or classified information between the
President and the public officers covered by this EO, including: conversations and
Biraogo vs. Truth Commission: correspondence between the President and public officers covered by this EO; Military,
Pres. Noynoy signed EO No.1 establishing the Phil. Truth Commission, who is tasked to diplomatic and other national security matters; Information between inter-government
investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by the previous administration and agencies prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements; Discussions in
would have the powers of an investigative body. [Truth Commission was declared as close-door cabinet meetings; and other matters affecting national security and public
unconstitutional for not being able to pass the equal protection test.] "Executive power" is order.
not only the power to enforce the laws. The President has powers inherent in such Sec. 2(b): The following officers are covered by the executive privilege: Senior
position unless the Constitution withholds it. The Constitution provides that the execution officials of executive departments who in the judge of the department heads

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
are covered by the executive privilege; Generals and flag officers of the AFP and such
other officers who in the judgment of the Chief of Staff are covered by the privilege; PNP In this case:
officers with rank of superintendent or higher and such other officers who in the judgment 1) Executive Secretary Ermita claimed executive privilege on the argument that the
of the PNP Chief are covered by the privilege; Senior national security officials who in the communications elicited by the 3 questions fall under conversation and correspondence
judgment of the National Security Adviser are covered by the privilege; and such other between the President and public officials necessary in her executive and policy
officers as may be determined by the President. decision-making process, and that the information sought to be disclosed might impair
our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the Peoples Republic of China. It is
Sec. 3: All public officials enumerated under 2(b) shall secure consent of the President clear then that the basis of the claim is a matter related to the quintessential and non-
prior to appearing before Congress. delegable presidential power of diplomacy or foreign relation.
2) The communications were received by a close advisor of the President. Under the
Even where the inquiry is in aid of legislation, there are still recognized exemptions to the operational proximity test, petitioner Neri can be considered a close advisor, being a
power of inquiry, which exemptions fall under the rubric of executive privilege. Since member of the President's Cabinet.
the term figures prominently in the challenged order, it being mentioned in its provisions, 3) There is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of
its preambular clauses, and in its very title, a discussion of executive privilege is crucial the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate
for determining the constitutionality of EO 464. investigating authority.

Sec.1 is similar to Sec.3 in that both require the officials covered by them to secure the Akbayan vs. Aquino [JPEPA]:
consent of the President prior to appearing before Congress. However, Sec.1 specifically Petitioners seek to obtain from respondents the full text of the JPEPA including the
applies to department heads. It does not, unlike Sec.3, require a prior determination by Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent
any official whether they are covered by EO464. The President herself has, through the attachments and annexes thereto. At this time, negotiations for JPEPA had still not been
challenged order, made the determination that they are. Further, likewise unlike Sec.3, concluded. From the nature of the JPEPA as an international trade agreement, it is
the coverage of department heads under Sec.1 is not made to depend on the department evident that the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiations towards
heads possession of any information which might be covered by executive privilege. In its execution are matters of public concern. This, respondents do not dispute. They only
fact, in marked contrast to Sec.3 vis--vis Sec.2, there is no reference to executive claim that diplomatic negotiations are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege, thus
privilege at all. The claim of privilege under Sec. 3 in relation to Sec.2(b) is invalid. The constituting an exception to the right to information and the policy of full public
said provision allows the executive branch to evade congressional requests for disclosure. The deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome
information without need of clearly asserting a right to do so and/or proffering its reasons by a sufficient showing of need. This need determination is to be made flexibly on a case-
therefor. under said sections, instead of providing precise and certain reasons for the by-case, ad hoc basis.
claim of privilege, a person may merely invoke that he is among the officials enumerated
under EO 464, coupled with an announcement that the President has not given her Presidential Communications Privilege Deliberative Process Privilege
consent to be excused from appearing before Congress. Moreover, the Court notes that - Pertains to communications, - Includes advisory opinions,
Sec.2(b) virtually states that executive privilege actually covers persons. Such is a documents or other materials that recommendations and deliberations,
misuse of the doctrine. Executive privilege, as discussed above, is properly invoked in reflect presidential decision-making comprising part of a process by which
relation to specific categories of information and not to categories of persons. Said section and deliberations, that the P believes governmental decisions and policies
is further invalidated by the fact that by mere silence of the President, an executive should remain confidential [i.e., are formulated.
officer may invoke the privilege. military, diplomatic, sensitive national - Applies to decision and policy-making
security. of Exec. officials [as well as to the 2
Neri vs. Senate: - Rooted in the constitutional principle other depts.]
Neri appeared before respondent and testified for about 11 hours on matters concerning of separation of powers. - Based on common law privilege.
the the "NBN Project, a project awarded by the DOTC to ZTE. Petitioner disclosed that - Applies to docs in their entirety, - Protects from disclosure documents
then COMELEC Chairman Abalos offered him P200Mn in exchange for his approval of the covering final and post-decisional reflecting component parts of the
NBN Project. He further narrated that he informed Pres. Arroyo of the bribery attempt materials as well as pre-deliberative process for formulating governmental
and that she instructed him not to accept the bribe. However, when probed further on ones. decisions and policies.
President Arroyo and petitioners discussions relating to the NBN Project, petitioner - Applies to the Exec. alone.
refused to answer, invoking "executive privilege." Citing the case of US vs. Nixon, the 1.) The protected communication must The agency must show that the document
Court laid out the 3 elements needed to be complied with in order for the claim to relate to a quintessential and non- is BOTH 1) predecisional and 2)
executive privilege to be valid. These are: delegable presidential power; deliberative
2.) It must be authored, solicited, and 1. A document is predecisional if it
1.) The protected communication must relate to a quintessential and non-delegable received by a close advisor of the precedes in temporal sequence the
presidential power; President or the President himself. decision to which it relates.
2.) It must be authored, solicited, and received by a close advisor of the President or (The judicial test is that an advisor - Communications are considered
the President himself. (The judicial test is that an advisor must be in operational must be in operational proximity predecisional if they were made
proximity with the President); and with the President); and in an attempt to reach a final
3.) It may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information 3.) It may be overcome by a showing of conclusion.
sought likely contains important evidence, and by the unavailability of the adequate need, such that the
information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. information sought likely contains 2. Deliberative if it reflects the give-and-

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
important evidence, and by the take of the consultative process. No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive terms. Voluntary renunciation
unavailability of the information - Key Q is whether the disclosure of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the
elsewhere by an appropriate of the information would continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.
investigating authority. discourage candid discussion
within the agency. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for President and Vice-President
shall be held on the second Monday of May.

III. Immunity from Suit The returns of every election for President and Vice-President, duly certified by the board
: No provision in the Consti, but according to Fr. Bernas, it was already of canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Congress, directed to
understood from jurisprudence that the President may not be sued during his the President of the Senate. Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of
tenure the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, open all the
a. The President, during his tenure of office or actual incumbency, may certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint public
not be sued in any civil or criminal case, and there is no need to session, and the Congress, upon determination of the authenticity and due execution
provide for it in the Constitution or law. It will degrade the dignity of thereof in the manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
the high office of the President, the Head of State, if he can be
dragged into court litigations while serving as such. Furthermore, it is The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected, but in case
important that he be freed from any form of harassment, hindrance or two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall forthwith
distraction to enable him to fully attend to the performance of his be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress,
official duties and functions. (David vs. Arroyo) voting separately.
b. Ratio for the grant is to assure the exercise of Presidential duties and
functions free from any hindrance or distraction, considering that the The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the canvassing of the certificates.
Chief Exec is a job that, aside from requiring all of the office-holders The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
time, also demands undivided attention. But this privilege may only be election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President, and may
invoked by the holder of the office; not by any other person in the promulgate its rules for the purpose.
Presidents behalf. (Soliven vs. Judge Makasiar)
c. As a non-sitting President, he cannot enjoy immunity from suit. It will : Election of the President and VP: elected by direct vote by the people
be anomalous to hold that immunity is an inoculation from liability for : Term of the President and the VP
unlawful acts and omissions. Unlawful acts of public officials are not o President- fixed term of 6 years to begin at noon on June 30th
acts of the State and the officer who acts illegally is not acting as such following the year of the election and to end at noon also on June 30th,
but stands in the same footing as any trespasser. (Estrada vs. 6 years after
Desierto) o The fixing of the exact date and time excludes the right to hold-over
o The President is not eligible for any re-election for that office, either
Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the immediately after his term or even after an interval of 1 or more terms
Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the o VP- may not serve for more than 2 successive terms
day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately % Voluntary renunciation for any length of time shall not be
preceding such election. considered as an interruption in his service
% If the VP succeeds to the Presidency, if he serves for less
Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and than 4 years, he may run for election as President (not a
term of office and be elected with, and in the same manner, as the President. He may be case of re-election)
removed from office in the same manner as the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment I. Congress as National Board of Canvassers
requires no confirmation. : Congress is given the authority to make a determination of the authenticity and
: The VP is essentially a President on reserve due execution of the returns coming from the provincial and city board of
: In deference to his office, an appointment as department head extended to him canvassers in accordance with the manner provided for by law.
does not need the consent of the COA
o But the President is not obliged to give the VP a Cabinet position Pimentel vs. Joint Committee [non-leg]:
Petitioner seeks to have the joint committees continued existence be declared null and
Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the void to determine the authenticity of the due execution of the certificates of canvass and
people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next preliminary canvass of the votes cast for the positions of President and Vice President
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date, six years during the May 2004 Elections following the adjournment of Congress sine die on June
thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No person who has 11, 2004. Petitioner goes on by saying that the all pending matters and proceedings
succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified termination upon the expiration of Congress. As further proof, he relied on the legislative
for election to the same office at any time. procedure, precedent or practice as borne out by the rules of both Houses of Congress.
The legislative functions of the 12th Congress may have come to a close upon the final
adjournment of its regular sessions on June 11, 2004, but this does not affect
its non-legislative functions, such as that of being the National Board of

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Canvassers. In fact, the joint public session of both Houses of Congress convened by President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the
express directive of Sec.4, Art.VII to canvass the votes for and to proclaim the newly Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or
elected President and Vice-President has not, and cannot, adjourn sine die until it has Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.
accomplished its constitutionally mandated tasks. For only when a board of canvassers
has completed its functions is it rendered functus officio. The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as President in case of death,
permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until the
Q: What are the non-legislative functions of Congress? President or the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified, and be subject to
1. Appropriation the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting President.
2. Declaration of a State of War
3. Canvassing the returns of the P/VP Start of Term [as of Noon June 30] (Sec. 7):
4. Impeachment.
Fails to Qualify Not Chosen Death; P. Disability
II. Breaking a presidential or vice-presidential tie Pres. VP Both Pres. VP Both Pres VP Both
: Congress has authority to break a tie VP N/A Senate VP N/A Senate VP IS After Senate
: Sec.4 (5) provides the method for breaking the tie in case 2 or more shall have acts as P. or acts as P. or P. June P. or
an equal and highest number of votes. It is broken by vote of a majority of the P. Speaker P. Speaker 30, 9 Speaker
all the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately acts as acts as can acts as
P. P. apply. P.
III. Presidential or Vice-Presidential Controversies
Tecson vs. Lim [need for post election issue]: During or Mid- Term (Sec. 8):
The issue of citizenship of FPJ is brought up to challenge his qualifications as a
presidential candidate. It is alleged that he is not a natural born Filipino citizen. The rules Death; P. Disabled; Removal; Resignation Death; P. Disabled;
categorically speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over contests relating to the election, Resignation
returns and qualifications of the President or Vice-President and not of "candidates" for Pres. Vice Pres. Both Acting Pres. (SP/SH)
President or Vice-President. The election contest can only contemplate a post-election VP IS P. Pres. Will Senate P. or By Law
scenario. It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, defined by nominate VP from Speaker acts as P.
Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would not include cases directly brought Congress (9) Q: So should 10 apply?
before it, questioning the qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-
presidency before the elections are held.
I. Filing a Vacancy in the Presidency
Section 5. Oath of Office
Estrada vs. Desierto (succession):
The case is about Eraps resignation as President. Petitioner is alleging that he is the
Section 6. Official Residence
lawful and incumbent President, temporarily unable to discharge the duties of his office
Section 7. The President-elect and the Vice President-elect shall assume office at the
and that GMA is only President in an Actin capacity. Under the totality test, Erap has
beginning of their terms.
resigned. There must be an intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of
If the President-elect fails to qualify, the Vice President-elect shall act as President until
relinquishment. Whether or not petitioner resigned has to be determined from his act and
the President-elect shall have qualified.
omissions before, during and after January 20, 2001 or by the totality of prior,
contemporaneous and posterior facts and circumstantial evidence bearing a material
If a President shall not have been chosen, the Vice President-elect shall act as President
relevance on the issue.
until a President shall have been chosen and qualified.
Totality Test:
If at the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died or
1. Intent to resign
shall have become permanently disabled, the Vice President-elect shall become President.
2. Acts of relinquishment.
Where no President and Vice-President shall have been chosen or shall have qualified, or
where both shall have died or become permanently disabled, the President of the Senate
Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President during the
or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as
term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President from among
President until a President or a Vice-President shall have been chosen and qualified.
the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall assume office
upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of both Houses of the Congress,
The Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner in which one who is to act as
voting separately.
President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified, in
case of death, permanent disability, or inability of the officials mentioned in the next
Section 10. The Congress shall, at ten o'clock in the morning of the third day after the
preceding paragraph.
vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President occurs, convene in accordance
with its rules without need of a call and within seven days, enact a law calling for a
Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of
special election to elect a President and a Vice-President to be held not earlier than forty-
the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.
five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill calling
In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the
such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph 2, Section 26,

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Article V1 of this Constitution and shall become law upon its approval on third reading by
the Congress. Appropriations for the special election shall be charged against any current Section 12. In case of serious illness of the President, the public shall be informed of the
appropriations and shall be exempt from the requirements of paragraph 4, Section 25, state of his health. The members of the Cabinet in charge of national security and foreign
Article V1 of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor relations and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, shall not be denied
the special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs access to the President during such illness.
within eighteen months before the date of the next presidential election.
I. Serious illness of the President
BOTH offices of the Pres. And VP must be vacant. : Sec. 11 deals with illness which results in incapacity, while Sec.12 presumably
deals with serious illness that is not incapacitating because access to him is kept
Convene= Day 3 after vacancy at 10am -> after 7 days = call for Spl. Elections + 45-60 open for Cabinet members in charge of national security and foreign relations
days = holding of the Special Election [except if vacancy occurs within 18 months before o To allow the President to make the important decisions in those areas
the NEXT presidential elections] of govt, which suggests a situation where the President is still able

Section 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the Senate and the Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, and their
Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to deputies or assistants shall not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any
discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written other office or employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said tenure,
declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice- directly or indirectly, practice any other profession, participate in any business, or be
President as Acting President. financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted
by the Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
Whenever a majority of all the Members of the Cabinet transmit to the President of the government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall strictly
Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President
shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. 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
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and to the Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled
shall reassume the powers and duties of his office. Meanwhile, should a majority of all the corporations and their subsidiaries.
Members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, their written declaration that the President I. Prohibition against holding another office or employment
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall decide the : Prohibits the President, VP, members of the Cabinet, and their deputies and
issue. For that purpose, the Congress shall convene, if it is not in session, within forty- assistants from holding any office or employment during their tenure
eight hours, in accordance with its rules and without need of call. : Except for the VP who may be appointed to the cabinet, and the Secretary of
Justice who is made ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar Council, the
If the Congress, within ten days after receipt of the last written declaration, or, if not in officials enumerated under Sec.13 may not hold another office.
session, within twelve days after it is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds : The stricter prohibition is imposed on members of the Cabinet. It therefore
vote of both Houses, voting separately, that the President is unable to discharge the applies not just to department secretaries, but to any one who is a member.
powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall act as President; otherwise, the
President shall continue exercising the powers and duties of his office. Rafael vs. Embroidery and Apparel Control Board [designation and ex-officio
I. Incapacity of the President Petitioner was contesting the membership of the Embroidery and Apparel Control and
: Deals with the thorny issue of whether the President is still able to perform his Inspection Board by RA3137 which consists of a rep from BOC to act as Chairman, a rep
functions or not. If the President is able to make the decision and is willing to from Central Bank , a rep from the Dept of Commerce and Industry, a rep from the Natl
declare himself disabled, he certainly has the power to declare so. Economic Council and a rep from the private sector from the AEAEP. An examination of
the questioned statute reveals that for the chairman and members of the Board to qualify
Procedure: they need only be designated by the respective department heads. With the exception of
1. President is unable to discharge his powers because: the representative from the private sector, they sit ex-officio. In order to be designated
a. He declares that he is unable they must already be holding positions in the offices mentioned in the law. No new
b. By a transmittal by the majority of the Cabinet Members to the Senate appointments are necessary. This is as it should be, because the representatives so
President and House Speaker that the President is unable designated merely perform duties in the Board in addition to those they already perform
2. In this case, VP temporarily acts as President under their original appointments.
3. President may resume office by a written declaration to the Senate President and
House Speaker that no inability exists CLU vs. Executive Secretary [stricter prohibition on presidents official family
4. Within 5 days, the Cabinet may still prevent the President from resuming office by against multiple offices]:
written declaration that the President remains unable to discharge his powers. Petitioner challenged EO284, issued by Pres. Cory which in effect allowed Cabinet
5. In such case Congress shall decide the issue within 10 (12 if not in session) by a members, their undersecretaries and asst. secretaries and other appointive
vote of 2/3s of both houses voting separately. officials of the Executive Department to hold, in addition to his primary position,

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
not more than 2 positions in the govt and govt corporations. The EO further stated that Court Justices can only be made by the President upon the submission of a list of at least
the limitation would not apply to ad-hoc bodies, or to boards, councils or boards of which three nominees by the JBC; Section 4(1) of the Article mandates the President to fill the
the President is chairman. EO was declared as unconstitutional. Although Sec.7, vacancy within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy. Section 15, Article VII does
Art.IX-B contains a blanket prohibition against the holding of multiple offices or not apply as well to all other appointments in the Judiciary.
employment in the government for both elective and appointive public officials, the
Commission saw it fit to formulate Sec. 13, Art.VII, specifically prohibiting the President, Section 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, their deputies and assistants from holding any Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other
other office or employment during their tenure, unless otherwise provided in the public ministers and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or
Constitution. The intent of the framers of the Constitution was to impose a stricter naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this
prohibition on the President and his official family in so far as holding other offices or Constitution.7 He shall also appoint all other officers of the Government whose
employment in the government or elsewhere is concerned. 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
Sec. 7 par. 2 Art. IX-B is the general rule for Public Officials, Sec. 13 Art VII is the officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of
exception. While all other appointive officials in the civil service are allowed to hold other departments, agencies, commissions, or boards.
office/employment in the government during their tenure, when such is allowed by law or
the primary functions of their position, members of the Cabinet, deputies and assistants, The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the
may do so only when expressly provided by the Constitution itself. Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective
only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment
II. Other Prohibitions of the Congress.
: Prohibited participation in a contract with the govt can include being a member
of a family corporation which has dealings with the govt I. Nature of the appointing power
: If 4th degree relatives are already in office when a President assumes office, : Since the power to appoint is neither legislative nor judicial, it must be
the relatives are NOT thereby ousted from their positions executive.
o What is prohibited is appointment or reappointment and not o The legislature may not usurp such function
uninterrupted continuance in office. % It may only create an office and prescribe the qualifications
of the person who may hold the office, but it may neither
Section 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless specify the person who shall be appointed to such office nor
revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption actually appoint him
of office. : The appointing power is the exclusive prerogative of the President, upon which
no limitations may be imposed by Congress except those resulting in the need
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the of securing the concurrence of the Commission on Appointments
end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except : The appointing authority, however, should not be confused with the authority of
temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will the legislature to impose additional duties on existing offices.
prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
I. Midnight appointments Government vs. Springer [power to appoint as executive]:
: This provision is a limitation on the Presidents power of appointment. There is The NCC was created by Act2705 which purports to vest the voting power of the govt
no similar limitation on the power of appointment of local executives. owned stock in the Senate President and the Speaker of the HR. The Gov-General
asserted the sole power to vote the stock of the govt. The power of appointment is in the
De Castro vs. JBC: executive department and the membership in the voting committee in question is an
This is a consolidation of 7 petitions regarding the legality of Pres. GMAs appointment of office or executive function. The NCC is an instrumentality of govt, and that the duty to
the successor of Chief Justice Puno upon his compulsory retirement by May 17, 2010, look after govt agencies and property belongs to the executive.
only 7 days after the coming presidential elections on May 10, 2010. Under Sec.4(1), in
relation to Sec.9, Art.VIII, that vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from the Datu Abas Kida vs. Senate
occurrence thereof from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC for every Assailing the court decision upholding the synchronization of the ARMM election to 2013,
vacancy. But, under Art.VII, Sec.14, Appointments extended by an Acting President petitioner herein question the said decision, among some is the power given to the
shall remain effective, unless revoked by the elected President, within ninety days from president to appoint OICs during the interim period. The power given to the president to
his assumption or reassumption of office. Also, under Sec.15, Two months immediately appoint OIC during the interim period is necessitated by the Constitutional mandates of
before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting 1) synchronization of national elections and 2) unconstitutionality of shortening or
President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive lengthening the periods of elected officials. The Congress may not extend the terms of
positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger local officials.
public safety. The prohibition under Sec.15, Arti.VII does NOT apply to appointments to
fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court or to other appointments to the Judiciary. As can be
seen, Art.VII is devoted to the Executive Department, and, among others, it lists the
Members of the SC, the Ombudsman and his deputies need NO confirmation. Whereas,
powers vested by the Constitution in the President. The presidential power of
regular members of the JBC, and members of the Constitutional Commissions require
appointment is dealt with in Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Article. Art.VIII is dedicated to
the Judicial Department. In particular, Section 9 states that the appointment of Supreme confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
prescribing qualifications to an office, cannot impose on the President who her alter
The second group of officials the President can appoint are all other officers of the ego should be.
Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and those whom
he may be authorized by law to appoint. This acts as the catch-all provision for the Ad Interim v. Appointments in an Acting Capacity
Presidents appointment power, in recognition of the fact that the power to appoint is
essentially executive in nature. The wide latitude given to the President to appoint is Ad Interim Acting Capacity8
further demonstrated by the recognition of the Presidents power to appoint officials Effective upon acceptance
whose appointments are not even provided for by law. Given that the President Extended only during a recess of Congress Extended anytime there is a vacancy
derives his power to appoint OICs in the ARMM regional government from law, it falls Submitted to the Commission of NOT submitted to the Commission on
under the classification of presidential appointments covered by the second sentence of Appointments for confirmation/rejection Appointments
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution; the Presidents appointment power thus rests This not a temporary appointment. An ad- Way of temporarily filling important offices
on clear constitutional basis. interim appointment is permanent. but, if abused, they can also be a way of
circumventing the need for confirmation
With this, it was just necessary for the president to appoint OICS, so that there wouldnt by the Commission on Appointments.
be disruption of government during the interim period in the ARMM. This is not to be
confused with the power to CONTROL, because it is still a SUPERVISORY power because III. Scope of the power of the Commission on Appointments
as mentioned, after the appointment of the OICS, the president no longer has the power : 1st sentence: 9 a 3-step process, namely nomination, consent and appointment
to recall such appointments. o Those that need consent of Commission on Appointments:
% Heads of the executive departments
Note: Congress cannot extend the terms of local officials, except for barangay officials, % Ambassadors, and other public ministers and consuls
because Art. X, Sec. 8 provides that their term shall be three years. % Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
II. Kinds of presidential appointments % Other officers whose appointments are vested in him by the
Sec.14 - Acting When the elected President assumes or reassumes office, he is given Chairmen and commissioners of the CSC, Comelec
President 90 days within which to revoke appointments made by the Acting and COA
President. If he does not revoke them, they remain as if made by the Regular members of the JBC
elected President. : 2nd sentence: only of appointment [NO confirmation necessary]
Sec. 15 - Made by a President within 2 months before the next presidential
Midnight elections and up to the end of his term. In order not to tie the hands Sarmiento vs. Mison [1st sentence- enumeration is limited; 3rd sentence- use of
appointments of the incoming President through midnight appointments, the word alone as mere lapsus; head of bureau - no CA confirmation]:
appointments made during that period can only be temporary and Petitioners seek to enjoin Mison from performing the functions of the Office of
therefore revocable by the next President. Commissioner of the BOC on the ground that Misons appointment as Commissioner of
Sec. 16 - With or w/o confirmation by Commission on Appointments, and with the Bureau of Customs is unconstitutional by reason of its not having been confirmed by
Regular ad-interim appointments the Commission on Appointments (COA). The 1st sentence enumeration is limited, as the
Presidential 4 groups are appointed with the consent of the CA. In the 1987 Constitution, the clear
appointments and expressed intent of its framers was to exclude presidential appointments from
confirmation by the CA, except appointments to offices expressly mentioned in the first
Pimentel vs. Ermita [acting Secretaries] sentence of Sec. 16. The use of the word alone was a mere lapse. The position of
Congress commenced their regular session on July 26, 2004. On Aug. 25, the Commissioner of the BOC (a bureau head) is not one of those within the first group of
Commission on Appointments was constituted. Meanwhile, PGMA issued appointments to appointments where the consent of the Commission on Appointments is required.
the respondents as acting secretaries of their respective departments. The date of
appointment was Aug. 15 and Aug. 23 (while Congress was in session) The respondents Bautista vs. Salonga [1st sentence- other officers whose appointments are
likewise took their oath of office and assumed their duties as acting secretaries. Congress vested in the President; CHR Chair, CA confirmation]:
adjourned on Sept. 22. The next day, PGMA issued ad interim appointments to Under EO163 creating the CHR, Pres. Aquino appointed the petitioner as Acting Chairman.
respondents as secretaries of the departments to which they were previously appointed in Petitioner took her oath and discharged the functions and duties of the Office of the
an acting capacity. The essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary Chairman. She received a letter from the CA who disapproved her ad interim
nature. It is a stop-gap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until the appointment. Since the appointment of the Chairman and Members of the CHR is not
appointment of a permanent occupant to the office. In case of vacancy in an office specifically provided for in the Constitution itself, unlike the Chairmen and Members of the
occupied by an alter ego of the President, such as the office of a department secretary, CSC, the Comelec and the COA, whose appointments are expressly vested by the
the President must necessarily appoint an alter ego of her choice as acting secretary
before the permanent appointee of her choice could assume office. Congress, through a %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
law, cannot impose on the President the obligation to appoint automatically the Sec. 17, Chap 5, Title I, Book III of E.O. 292 states: The President may temporarily designate
undersecretary as her temporary alter ego. An alter ego, whether temporary or an officer already in the government service, or any other competent person to perform the
permanent, holds a position of great trust and confidence. Congress, in the guise of functions of an office in the executive branch.
The Court has held that the list in the first sentence of 16 of those whose appointments
require confirmation may not be expanded by statutory legislation.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Constitution in the President with the consent of the CA. The President appoints the Petitioner appealed, on the ground that he was deprived of the right to have his case
Chairman and Members of the CHR pursuant to the 2nd sentence in Sec.16, Art. VII, that appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. The President does not have blanket
is, without the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments because they are among authority to remove any officer or employee of the government but his power must still
the officers of government "whom he (the President) may be authorized by law to be subject to the law passed by the legislative body, particularly with regard to the
appoint." procedure, cause and finality of the removal of persons who may be the subject of
disciplinary action. This power of control merely applies to the exercise of control over the
Rufino vs. Endriga [2nd sentence- whose appointments are not otherwise acts of the subordinate and not over the actor or agent himself of the act.
provided for by law]: NOTE: The inherent disciplinary power of the President has been made subject to
Pres. Marcos issued EO 30 creating the CCP as a trust governed by a BOT of 7 members. limitation by the legislature through the Civil Service System. Hence, it may be said that
PD 15 (CCP Charter) increased the members of the BOT from 7 to 9 members. Then EO while the executive has power over the judgment or discretion of his subordinates, it
1058 increased it to 11 trustees. During the term of Ramos, the CCP Board included is the legislature which has control over their person.
Endriga, Lagdameo, Sison, Potenciano, Fernandez, Cabili and Manosa (Endriga Group).
Subsequently, Pres. Estrada appointed 7 new trustees (Rufino Group) for a term of 4 Joson vs. Torres [power to discipline local officials]:
years to replace Endriga Group. Endriga Group files a petition for quo warranto Petitioner, a governor, was placed under preventive suspension by the Exec Secretary bec
questioning the appointment of the Rufino Group. Allegations were: 1) that under Section of a charge of grave misconduct and abuse of authority under the recommendation of the
6(b) of PD 15, it is only when the CCP Board is entirely vacant may the President fill such Sec of DILG. He is now questioning such preventive suspension. The power to discipline
vacancies; 2) that when Estrada appointed the Rufino Group, only one seat was vacant. evidently includes the power to investigate. As the President has the power to investigate
Sec 6(b) and (c) are inconsistent with the Constitution. These provisions empower the complaints against local government officials, AO 23 nevertheless delegates the power to
remaining trustees of the CCP Board to fill vacancies in the Board, allowing them to elect investigate to the DILG or a Special Investigating Committee. This is not undue
their fellow trustees. On the other hand, Sec 16 (Art VII) allows the heads of delegation, contrary to Josons claim. What is delegated it the power to investigate, not
departments, agencies, commissions, or boards to appoint only officers lower in rank the power to discipline. Furthermore, the power of the DILG to investigate administrative
than such heads of departments, agencies, commissions, or boards. This excludes a complaints is based on the alter-ego principle or the doctrine of qualified political agency,
situation where the appointing officer appoints an officer equal in rank as him. Sec6 (b) which is based on the control power of the President. Control is said to be the very heart
and (c) makes CCP trustees the independent appointing power of their fellow trustees. of the power of the presidency. As head of the Executive, the President may delegate
The creation of an independent appointing power inherently conflicts with the Presidents some of his powers to the Cabinet members except when he is required by the
power to appoint. Constitution to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he acts
personally. Each head of the department is and must be the Presidents alter ego in the
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority.
and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. BUT: The power to discipline stems from the power of the Pres. to APPOINT, and not from
his control powers.
I. Power of control
: The President is given control of all the executive departments, bureaus and KMU vs. Dir.-Gen. of NEDA:
offices. Pres.GMA issued EO420 requiring all government agencies and government-owned
o Control is not just over the department head but also over all corporations to streamline and harmonize their Identification Systems in order to reduce
subordinate officers of the department costs, achieve efficiency and reliability and ensure compatibility and provide convenience
: Control: power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a to the people. Under the power of control, the President may by executive or
subordinate officer has done in the performance of his duties and to substitute administrative order direct the govt entities under the executive department to adopt a
the judgment of the former for that of the latter uniform ID data collection and format. The Presidents constitutional power of control is
: Doctrine of qualified political agency: all executive and administrative self-executing and does not need any implementing legislation. The Constitution also
organizations are adjuncts of the Executive department, the heads of the mandates the President to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. There are several
various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, laws mandating government entities to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and in general,
and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or improve public services. The adoption of a uniform ID data collection and format under
law to act in person or in the exigencies of the situation demand that he act EO 420 is designed to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and in general, improve public
personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief services.
Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the
acts of the secretaries, performed and promulgated in the regular course of Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive. prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or
rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty
Ang-Angco vs. Castillo [distinguish Presidents power over acts and person days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
of appointee in classified service]: part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial
Petitioner, a Collector of Customs, believing Pepsi had complied with the requirements for law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall
withdrawing commodities from the customs house, allowed its release. When the submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a
Commissioner learned this, he filed an admin charge against petitioner for grave neglect vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke
of duty. The Exec Secretary, by authority of the President, declared that his conduct was such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and considered him to be resigned. President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the conditions required by the Constitution to justify a suspension of the privilege of the writ
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. is no longer conclusive on the other branches. This Court may legitimately inquire into its
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the During the Oakwood mutiny where members of the Armed Forces of the Philippine
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the occupied the Oakwood apartments in Makati, the President GMA issued Proclamation No.
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its 427 and General Order No. 4, both declaring "a state of rebellion" and calling out the
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. Armed Forces to suppress the rebellion. The petitioners claim that the declaration of state
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant of rebellion is an exercise of emergency powers, which amounts to a usurpation of the
the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment power of Congress. The SC ruled that the President has the power to declare state of
of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to rebellion in the exercise of her Commander-in-Chief powers. However, in calling out the
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. armed forces, a declaration of a state of rebellion is an utter superfluity. As to the issue of
exercising emergency powers without the grant of such power by the Congress, the SC
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons ruled that there is no proof that the President exercised powers beyond her powers as the
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, Chief Executive or Commander-in-Chief. The President, in declaring a state of rebellion
invasion. and in calling out the armed forces, was merely exercising a wedding of her Chief
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus Executive and Commander-in-Chief powers.
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be
released. David vs. Arroyo [PP1017]
These petitions question the validity of PP 1017 (declaring a state of national emergency)
I. Commander-in-Chiefship and General Order No. 5 issued by President GMA. While the cases are pending, President
: The President is not a member of the armed forces but remains a civilian Arroyo issued PP 1021, declaring that the state of national emergency has ceased to
o Elected as the highest civilian officer a civilian president holds exist, thereby, in effect, lifting PP 1017. The specific portion of PP 1017 questioned is the
supreme military authority and is the ceremonial, legal and enabling clause: to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and
administrative head of the armed forces. regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction. Does this give the
: Does not require the President to possess military training and talents, but as President the power to enact laws and decrees? This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017
commander-in-chief he has the power to direct military operations and to is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President GMA the authority to promulgate
determine military strategy [may be delegated but the ultimate power is his]. decrees. Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. To be
: President has control and direction of the conduct of war, whether the war be sure, neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify
declared or undeclared the Executive has the power of the sword. President Arroyos exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees.
: 3 powers:
1) Calling out power It follows that these decrees are void and, therefore, cannot be enforced. With respect to
2) Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus laws, she cannot call the military to enforce or implement certain laws, such as customs
: applies only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses laws, laws governing family and property relations, laws on obligations and contracts and
inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion. the like. She can only order the military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent to its
3) Power to impose martial law on the Phils. or any part thereof. duty to suppress lawless violence.

Lansang vs. Garcia [habeas corpus reviewable by SC]: Ampatuan vs. Puno
Due to the throwing of 2 hand grenades in a Liberal Party caucus in 1971 causing the After the massacre in Maguindanao, President Arroyo issued Proc 1946 placing the
death of 8 people, Marcos issued PP 889 which suspended the privilege of the writ of provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and Cotabato under a state of emergency. She
habeas corpus. Marcos urged that there is a need to curtail the growth of further issued AOs 273 and 273-A delegating the supervision from OP to DILG. Petitioners
Maoist/communist groups. Subsequently, Lansang et al. were invited by the Philippine assail the said Proc and AOs for being unconstitutional and that the President does not
Constabulary headed by Garcia for interrogation and investigation. Lansang et al. have a basis for calling out those powers. The Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional.
questioned the validity of the suspension of the writ averring that the suspension does
not meet the constitutional requisites. 2 conditions must concur for the valid exercise of II. 3 Types of Martial Law
the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ (a) there must be "invasion, : 3 kinds of military jurisdiction (in American jurisprudence):
insurrection, or rebellion" or "imminent danger thereof," and (b) "public safety" must 1) Jurisdiction under military law- exercised both in peace and war;
require the suspension of the privilege. As commander-in-chief, the President has 3 2) Military government- exercised in the time of foreign war without the
courses of action: (a) to call out the armed forces; (b) to suspend the privilege of the writ boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war within
of habeas corpus; and (c) to place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. the states or districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents; and
He had already called out the armed forces, but this proved inadequate. Of the two other 3) Martial law proper- exercised in times of invasion or insurrection within the
alternatives, the suspension of the privilege is the least harsh. limits of the United States, or during rebellion within the limits of states
maintaining adhesion to the National Govt, when the public danger
The court finds that the PP889 is valid because the requisites for the suspension of writ of requires its exercise.
habeas corpus are present. Such presidential determination of the existence of the o Martial law in the Philippines is the 3rd one

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all
Call in AFP Suspend Privilege Declare Martial the Members of the Congress.
of the Writ of HC Law
Grounds: I. Purpose of executive clemency
1. Prevent/Suppress Yes ?? ?? : Tacit admission that human institutions are imperfect and that there are
lawless violence infirmities in the administration of justice
2. Invasion Yes Yes Yes o Instrument for correcting these infirmities and for mitigating whatever
3. Rebellion Yes Yes Yes harshness might be generated by a too strict application of the law
Period: : Non-delegable power and must be exercised by the President personally
1. Prevent/Suppress ??
lawless violence accdg. to Dean Sed II. Constitutional limits on executive clemency
2. Invasion this is indefinite. GR: 60 Days Except: if extended or : Sec.19 sets down 3 limitations on the power of executive clemency:
3. Rebellion revoked 1) It cannot be exercised over cases of impeachment;
Notice ?? Congress within 48 hours 2) Reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remission of fines and
?? Congress forfeitures can be given only after final conviction by final judgment;
Judicial Review No? [Bernas p. 309] Yes. The test is whether the President did 3) Grant of amnesty must be with the concurrence of a majority of all the
NOT act arbitrarily, and the sufficiency of Members of Congress
the factual basis. o Art. IX, C, Sec.5 also says that no pardon, amnesty, parole or
Period - Decide in 30 days. suspension of sentence for violation of election laws, rules and
Who can question? ?? Any citizen. regulations shall be granted without the favorable recommendation of
Courts and Open Open Open
Assembly Reprieve Commutation Pardon Fines Amnesty
Charges and to ?? File in court within 3 days from arrest for Who Exercised by the President Alone, except in Election Offenses Pres. Plus
whom applicable the offense of rebellion related to invasion. exercises which require a positive recommendation from COMELEC majority of
III. Martial law proper is essentially police power Effect Postpones Remission of 1.Exemption Payment abolish
: Public safety is the concern of police power, which is also the object of the execution to a part of from of fine is offense
exercise of martial law day certain punishment punishment remitted (looks
: The exercise of the power which resides in the executive branch to preserve [Looks backward)
order and insure public safety in times of emergency, when other branches of Forward]
government are unable to function, or their functioning would itself threaten Civil liability
public safety Remains
: Calling out powers simply means calling on the AFP to assist the police. This Requisites Final Judgment May be
doesn't give the President any additional powers. A President can claim before or
emergency powers only when these are granted by Congress under Art. VI Sec. after
23. Conviction
: Martial law and the Suspension of the Writ depends on 2 factual bases: Beneficiary Individual Offender Class of
1) Existence of actual invasion or rebellion, and political
2) Requirements of public safety offenders
o Necessity creates the conditions for martial law and at the same time Limitations Impeachment. Tax Amnesty
limits the scope. Therefore the degree and kind of vigorous executive Election offense- only w/ comelec reco. needs
action needed to meet the varying kinds and degrees of emergency legislative
could not be identical under all conditions, they can only be analogous. concurrence
% COMMON DENOMINATOR IN THE EXERCISE OF MARTIAL Nature of Private Act by the President Public Act by
LAW POWER: the exercise by an executive officer of the the Act President and
discretion and judgment normally exercised by a legislative Legislature
or judicial body. Cases Cristobal Drilon Salle
Monsanto Llamas Bacang
NOTE: This is the only time that the Senate and the HoR vote jointly Torres Garcia Casido

Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Llamas vs. Orbos [clemency on administrative penalties]:
Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit Respondent governor was found guilty under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and
fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. was suspended. He filed an MR and pending such, the Executive Secretary
issued a Resolution granting him executive clemency. Petitioner is assailing the

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
constitutionality of such act, stating that executive clemency may only grant it in criminal PARDON AMNESTY
cases. The Constitution does not distinguish between which cases executive clemency A private act granted by the Chief A public act by proclamation of the Chief
may be exercised by the President, with the sole exclusion of impeachment cases. There Executive which must be pleaded and executive with the concurrence of Congress
is no valid and convincing reason why the President cannot grant executive clemency in proved by the person pardoned because of which the courts should take judicial
administrative casesIf the President can grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and the courts do not take notice thereof notice
remit fines and forfeitures in criminal cases, with much more reason can she grant Granted to one after conviction Granted to a class of persons or
executive clemency in administrative cases, which are clearly less serious than criminal communities who may be guilty of political
offenses. offenses, generally before or after the
institution of the criminal prosecution and
Torres vs. Gonzales [violation of conditional pardon]: sometimes after conviction
Petitioner was convicted of estafa in the CFI and affirmed by the CA. A conditional pardon Looks forward and relieves the offender Looks backward and abolishes and puts
was granted by the President on the condition that petitioner would not again violate any from the consequences of an offense of into oblivion the offense itself, it so
of the penal laws of the Philippines. Petitioner accepted. On the basis of several criminal which he has been convicted abolishes or overlooks and obliterates the offense with
charges, the Minister of Justice recommended the cancellation of the conditional pardon. forgives the punishment and does not work which he is charged that the person
The conditional pardon was cancelled and petitioner was arrested. The grant of pardon the restoration of the rights to hold public released by amnesty stands before the law
and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon are purely office, or the right of suffrage, unless such as though he committed no offense
executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny. The acceptance of the conditions rights be expressly restored by the terms
of the pardon imports the acceptance of the condition that the President will also of the pardon, and in no case exempts the
determine whether the condition has been violated. culprit from the payment of civil indemnity

III. Pardon: nature and legal effects V. Other forms of executive clemency
: An act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of : Reprieve: postpones the execution of an offense to a day certain
laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed, from the : Commutation: remission of a part of the punishment, a substitution of a less
punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed penalty for the one originally imposed
: No legal power can compel the executive to give it : Remission of fines and forfeitures: merely prevents the collection of fines or the
: A conditional pardon has no force until accepted by the condemned because it confiscation of property, it cannot have the effect of returning property which
may be less acceptable to him than the original punishment and may in fact be has been vested in third parties or money already in the public treasury
more onerous
: One who has been given Absolute Pardon has NO demandable right to Q: May the President grant tax amnesty without the concurrence of congress?
reinstatement, it does not restore legal office already forfeited. NO. Any absolute forgiveness or waiver by the Government of its right to collect requires
the concurrence of congress.
Monsanto vs. Factoran [reinstatement to former rights]:
Monsanto, an assistant treasurer, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa through Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the
falsification of public documents. While her MR was pending, Pres. Marcos extended to Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary Board, and subject
her absolute pardon which she accepted. She asked to be reinstated to her former to such limitations as may be provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty
position which the Office of the President denied, stating that she cannot be reinstated as days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a
acquittal can only produce such, and not absolute pardon. She was also required to complete report of its decision on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by
indemnify the amount she owed to the govt. Petitioner may apply for reappointment to the Government or government-owned and controlled corporations which would have the
the office which was forfeited, but the facts constituting her offense must be and should effect of increasing the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may be provided by
be evaluated and taken into account to determine ultimately whether she can once again law.
be entrusted with public funds. The pardon granted to petitioner has resulted in removing
her disqualification from holding public employment but it cannot go beyond that. To I. Power to contract or guarantee foreign loans
regain her former post as assistant city treasurer, she must re-apply and undergo the : Having learned from the Marcos regime which enslaved the Philippines to
usual procedure required for a new appointment. Finally, she still has to pay. Civil liability foreign banks, this provision created a more effective way of checking the
subsists, notwithstanding an absolute pardon. President
o The President can no longer contract or guarantee foreign loans
IV. Amnesty without the concurrence of the Monetary Board
: May be only given with the concurrence of the majority of all the members of : These rules are applicable to foreign laws, but legislation can also make it
Congress applicable to domestic loans
: The grant of a general pardon to a class of political offenders either after
conviction or even before the charges are filed Section 20 Section 21
: To avail of amnesty, it is not necessary for the accused to admit his Instrument Loans of the State -International Agreements
responsibility for the commission of the criminal act -Treaties
Requirements Requires the PRIOR concurrence Requires SUBSEQUENT
of the Monetary Board [no ratification of 2/3 of the Senate.
ratification necessary]

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Legal State can borrow from: o International law recognizes the right of 1 party to terminate a treaty
Characteristic a) Int Org. (i.e. IMF) for breach by the other party or when the fundamental circumstances
under IL b) Other States for which the treaty was entered into have changed (rebus sic
- Like an Intl Agreeement. stantibus)
c) International Banking : Since Congress has legislative power and since statutes and treaties are of the
Inst. same rank, Congress can pass a law negating the terms of a treaty
- Like a contract. o Will only affect the domestic force of the treaty under the theory of
Cs remedy: seek relief in native dualism
state (i.e. US) who will in turn
sue on behalf of the bank. III. Other Foreign Affairs Power
Foreign relations powers of the President:
Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless 1) Power to make treaties (Art. VII, Sec. 21)
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. - Also the power to enter into Executive/Intl Agreements
2) Power to appoint ambassadors, public ministers and consuls (Art. VII, Sec.
I. Senate concurrence in international agreements 16)
: Treaties of any kind, whether bilateral or multilateral, require Senate 3) Power to receive ambassadors and other public ministers (part of statutory
concurrence law)
: Treaties are not the only forms of international agreements the President can 4) Power to contract and guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic
enter into (Art. VII, Sec. 20)
o The authority to enter into executive agreements without concurrence 5) Power to deport (under the Administrative Code) pursuant to the residual
of the legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine power of the president to safeguard national interest and protect he
jurisprudence. general welfare of the State.
: Treaty-making involves 2 phases: negotiation and the actual making of the : The President is the sole organ of the state for foreign relations
treaty, in the negotiation phase, the President excludes the legislature.
However, the fruit of the executives negotiation cannot bind as law unless it has Vinuya vs. Romulo:
the concurrence of Senate Petitioners were all members of a comfort women group, who approached the Executive
: Ratification is given by at least 2/3 of all the members of Senate Dept assistance in filing a claim against the Japanese officials and military officers. The
Exec Dept declined, and took the position that the individual claims for compensation had
TREATIES EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS already been satisfied by Japans compliance with the Peace Treaty executed between
International agreements involving political - International agreements embodying the both countries. The court ruled that there was no GAD by the Exec Depts refusal to assist
issues or changes of national policy and implementation or adjustments of detail, in the petitioners. From a Domestic Law Perspective, the Executive Department has the
those involving international arrangements carrying out well-established national exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners claims against Japan.
of a permanent character policies and traditions In this case, the Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best interest
- Agreements involving arrangements of a of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the
more or less temporary nature. Treaty of Peace of 1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the courts to question.

Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress, within thirty days from the
Gonzales vs. Hechanova [nature of executive agreements]: opening of every regular session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget
The Executive Secretary authorized the importation of foreign rice to be purchased from of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from existing and proposed
private sources, and created a rice procurement committee composed of the other revenue measures.
respondents for the implementation of said proposed importation. The Government
executed contracts with the governments of other countries for the importation of rice. I. The Budget
Petitioner, as a rice planter and president of the Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters : The budget, which becomes the basis of the general appropriation bill, is
Association, filed the instant petition, alleging that the importation violates RA3452, which prepared by the President and submitted to Congress within 30 days from the
explicitly prohibits the importation of rice and corn "the Rice and Corn Administration or opening of every regular session
any other government agency. It was not sufficiently established by the respondents : Congress may not increase the appropriation recommended by the President for
that the contracts were executive agreements. (In fact, they even insisted that they the operation of the Govt as specified in the budget (Art. VI, Sec. 25)
were contracts.) Even assuming that they were executive agreements, the same were : The term sources of financing has reference to other sources other than
unlawful. Under the Constitution, the President has the power to enter into executive taxation i.e. foreign aid
agreements without previous legislative authority. However, he may not enter into
transactions through executive agreements if such transactions are prohibited by statutes Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular
enacted prior thereto. session. He may also appear before it at any other time.

II. Termination of Treaty

: May be arrived at by formal agreement of the parties or the treaty itself may
contain the manner of terminating its life

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
ARTICLE VIII: THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT mouthed by his client, and to safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal
Section 1: The Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such Lower The Supreme Court is Supreme and no other agency of the Government, including
Courts as may be established by law. the Tanodbayan, may declare its decisions unjust

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies Noblejas v. Teehankee: [re. Commissioner of Land Reg.]
involving rights, which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether SC has no power to discipline officers in other branches with equivalent rank of judges
or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of Granting executive officers the right to be investigated only by the Supreme Court
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. and to be suspended or removed upon its recommendation would be
unconstitutional. It would violate the fundamental doctrine of separation of powers,
Grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction: such capricious and by charging the SC with the administrative function of supervisory control over
whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be patent executive officials, and simultaneously reducing pro tanto the control of the Chief
and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or virtual refusal to perform a Executive over such officials.
duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is The Supreme Court of the Philippines and its members should not and cannot be
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility. required to exercise any power or to perform trust or to assume any duty not
pertaining to or connected with the administration of judicial function.
There is grave abuse of discretion:
1. When an act is done contrary to the Constitution, law or jurisprudence, or, Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio:
2. When is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill- The Courts have no power to suggest to the President or to express an opinion that would
will or personal bias. reflect on the wisdom or propriety of the action of the Chief Executive on matters purely
political in nature. It would be to violate the principle of separation of powers for the
However, it bears noting that judicial power has not done away with the political question judiciary to interfere or attempt to influence the exercise by the Chief Executive of the
doctrine. political powers of his office.

Infotech Technology v. Comelec: Justiciable Controversy:

Comelec awarded the contract for automation of counting and canvassing of the ballots to SBMA v. COMELEC:
Mega Pacific an entity that didnt even participate in the bidding. In this case there was Courts may decide only actual controversies not hypothetical questions
GAD. There is GAD when an act is done contrary to the constitution, law or jurisprudence. When a municipal resolution is still in the proposal stage, it is not yet an approved law.
Also when an act is executed whimsically, capriciously, or arbitrarily out of malice, ill will Should the people reject it, then there would be nothing to contest and to adjudicate. It is
or personal basis. only when the people have voted for it and it has become an approved ordinance or
resolution that rights and obligations can be enforced or implemented thereunder. At this
The power given to courts is Judicial Power nothing more thus it cannot: point, it is merely a proposal and the writ of prohibition cannot issue upon a mere
1. Attempt or assume nor be compelled to perform non-judicial functions. conjecture or possibility. Constitutionally speaking, courts may decide only actual
2. Nor may it be charged with administrative functions except when reasonably controversies, not hypothetical questions or cases.
incidental to the fulfillment of judicial duties.
3. Neither is it its function to give advisory opinions. Distinguished from declaratory relief:
a. Declaratory judgment is one with real parties and conflicting legal
interests, the judgment being bidning on the parties. While an Tano v. Socrates:
advisory opinion only a legal issue is posed in the abstract in advance Disregard of the hierarchy of courts must be put to a halt. Lower courts are often better
of an actual case. equipped to resolve factual issues since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.
The judicial policy that the Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress
Judicial Power: desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate courts or where exceptional and compelling
Santiago v. Bautista: circumstances justify availment of a remedy within and calling for the exercise of a
Before a tribunal, board or officer may exercise judicial or quasi-judicial acts, it is primary jurisdiction
necessary that: Supreme Court is not possessed of original jurisdiction over petitions for declaratory relief
1. there be a law that gives rise to some specific rights of persons or property even if only questions of law are involved.
under which adverse claims to such rights are made; and
2. the controversy ensuing therefrom is brought before the tribunal, board or Declaratory Relief Advisory Opinion
officer clothed with power and authority to determine what that law is and : Parties with real conflicting legal : Legal issue posed in the abstract.
thereupon adjudicate the respective rights of the contending parties. interest. : Not binding on anyone. NOT a
: Binding on parties. Judicial act. judicial act.
In re Laureta:
When the Court holds persons in contempt, there is no vindictive reprisal involved. Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to define prescribe, and apportion the
The Court's authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its
preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of an irate lawyer, Jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the security of
tenure of its members. Firestone Ceramics v. CA:
Decisions of a division are not appealable to the SC en banc, because such decisions are
Malaga v. Penachos: already a decision of the SC itself. En Banc is not an appellate court. Each division is not
A law is passed prohibiting courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving considered an inferior body to the Court en banc.
infrastructure projects of the government. The SC said such prohibition can only refer to
administrative acts in controversies involving facts or the exercise of discretion in De Castro v. JBC (2010)
technical cases. Outside of this, the courts cannot be prevented from exercising their The prohibition against presidential appointments under Section 15, Article VII does not
power. extend to appointments in the Judiciary.
P.D. 1818 was not intended to shield from judicial scrutiny irregularities committed by Section 4(1) imposes on the President the imperative duty to make an appointment of a
administrative agencies Member of the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancythe
failure by the President to do so will be a clear disobedience to the Constitution.
Sec. 3: The judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Appropriations for the judiciary may not The 90-day limitation fixed in Section 4(1), Article VIII for the President to fill the
be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and vacancy in the Supreme Court was undoubtedly a special provision to establish a definite
after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. mandate for the President as the appointing power.
JBC has no discretion to submit the list of nominees to fill a vacancy in the SC to the
Sec. 4: President after the vacancy occurs, because that shortens the 90-day period to make the
(1) The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and Fourteen Associate appointment.
Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five or seven The duty of the JBC to submit a list of nominees before the start of the Presidents
members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days form the occurrence thereof. mandatory 90-day period to appoint is ministerial, but its selection of the candidates
(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive whose names will be in the list to be submitted to the President lies within the discretion
agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court, en banc, and all of the JBC.
other cases which under the Rules of Court are Required to be heard en banc
including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of Fortich v. Corona:
presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other In this case they claimed that the motion for reconsideration that received a 7-7 vote
regulations shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who should not have in effect affirmed the prior decision because under the constitution if the
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. concurrence of the majority is not achieved then it should be referred en banc. The SC
(3) Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the however differentiated between original cases and matters and in this case the MR being
concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations a matter need not be referred to en banc.
on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case, without the concurrence
of at least three of such members. When the required number is not obtained or Cases v. Matters:
principle, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of A Case is a controversy brought before the Court for the first time. Where the required
law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be number of votes is not obtained, there is no decision.
modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. If it is case and the number of votes required (majority of those who deliberated) are not
obtained then the only way to dispose of the same is to refer it to the court en banc.
People v. Dy: Matters are those which include motions, which are resolved already, a motion for
The divisions of the Supreme Court are not distinct courts. The actions of the divisions reconsideration is a matter.
and decisions rendered therein are in effect by the same tribunal. Decisions or resolutions If it is a matter and the majority vote is not obtained then the prior decisions is affirmed.
of a division of the court are not inferior to an en banc decision.
Sec. 5
Cases which must be hear en banc: The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
1. Cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers
2. All cases which the Rules of Court require to be heard en banc. and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
3. All cases involving the constitutionality, application or operation of presidential and habeas corpus.
decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations; (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
4. Cases heard by a division when the required majority in the division is not Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
obtained; (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
5. Cases where the Supreme Court modifies or reverses a doctrine or principle of executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
law previously laid down either en banc of in division; ordinance, or regulation is in question.
6. Administrative cases involving the discipline or dismissal of judges of lower (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any
courts [NOW only in cases pertaining to dismissal] penalty imposed in relation thereto.
7. Election contests for president or vice president. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or
- When the SC sits en banc you need a quorum (which is 8) and you would need higher.
a majority of the members who took part in the deliberations so you need at (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
least 5 votes to decide a case en banc.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may i. He has sufficient interest in preventing illegal expenditure of
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the money raised by taxation
consent of the judge concerned. ii. That he will sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. of the questioned statute.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, iii. Gonzalez v. Narvasa: President appropriated 3m for operational
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, expenses of PCCR sourced from funds of the presidents office. A
the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall taxpayer does not have standing since what is in exercise here is
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, not an act of congress in its taxing or spending power. What was
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or involved was the Presidents power to apportion
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial Auxiliary Rules:
bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. 1. The question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil (exception however is when the court in the exercise of sound discretion).
Service Law.
Congress may diminish only statutory powers or jurisdiction of the SC but it cant When suing as:
diminish the jurisdiction granted by the Constitution itself. A Citizen He must be able to show, not only that the law or government act is invalid,
but also that he sustained or is imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a
Judicial Review: Power of the SC to declare a law, treaty, international or executive result of the enforcement. When the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right,
agreement, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance or regulation the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.
unconstitutional. A Legislator Allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action which
infringes his prerogatives as a legislator.
Essential Requisites: Actual case/controversy, Ripeness, Standing, Lis mota, Raised at the Class suits When filed in behalf of all citizens, persons intervening must be sufficiently
earliest opportunity numerous to fully protect the interests of all concerned.

1. There must be an ACTUAL CASE OR CONTROVERSY calling for the exercise of judicial Operative Fact: The declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute doesnt mean that
power. there are no rights, duties or protection afforded. Before an act is declared
a. Mariano v. COMELEC: The validity of the creation of the City of Makati unconstitutional it is an operative fact, which can be the source of rights and duties.
being challenged on the ground that it will allow the Mayor to extend his - Agbayani v. PNB: The period before a moratorium law was declared
term is premature because the elections wont be until after three years. unconstitutional was not allowed to toll the prescriptive period of the right to
2. The question before it must be RIPE for adjudication (the governmental being foreclose a mortgage.
challenged must have had an adverse effect on the person challenging it).
3. The person challenging the act must have STANDING to challenge, that is he must Judicial Review flows from judicial power and so inferior courts have power to exercise
have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained or judicial review.
will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement.
a. People v. Vera: One only has standing if he has a personal and substantial Political Questions: Courts have no power to pass upon political questions.
interest in the case such that he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury Baker v. Carr Guidelines
as a result of its enforcement. 1. There is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to
b. Telecommunications v. COMELEC: a political department or;
i. He has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury. 2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it or;
ii. Injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action 3. The impossibility of a courts undertaking independent resolution without
iii. The injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government or;
c. The rule however is flexible and allows a liberal approach when the subject 4. An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
is of transcendental interest,10 due to the over breadth doctrine, when its a or;
taxpayers suit, third party standing. 5. The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various
i. For the third party standing three important criterion must be departments on one question.
met: the litigant must have suffered an injury-in-fact giving him a - Not everything from Baker is applicable to the Philippine setting because of the
sufficient concrete interest in the outcome of the issue in dispute; Courts existence of grave abuse of discretion and thus the fact that there is an
the litigant must have a close relation to the third party; and unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made
there must exist some hindrance to the third partys ability to or the potentiality of embarrassment wont bar the SC.
protect his or her own interest. o It is political when the question goes into the wisdom of the decision or
d. Taxpayers Suit: act, when it goes into the legality of the act then it is justiciable.

Court Review of Capital Sentences: automatic review is now with the CA for death penalty
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% then to the SC for final disposition of the case.
1. Involves the character of the funds/assets involved in the case. - Garcia v. People: only in cases where the penalty imposed is death is there
2. The presence of a clear case of disregard of a consti/statutory prohibition by an automatic review. When it is RP the petitioner must appeal.
instrumentality of the government,
3. The lack of any other party with a more direct and specific interest in the questions raised.%

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Torrecampo v. Metropolitan unlike in previous cases where the court said that the matter was ripe for adjudication in
The determination of where, as between two possible routes, to construct a road this case it was not yet.
extension is obviously not within the province of this Court. It is a political question. Such
determination belongs to the Executive branch. 2nd Requisite: Standing:

Rule Making: Concepcion v. COMELEC:

Writ of Amparo: Remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty, and Under Section 1, Rule 65, an aggrieved party is one who was a party to the original
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public proceedings that gave rise to the original action for certiorari under Rule 65.
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity (covers extralegal killings, The petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not available to any person who feels injured
enforced disappearances or threatens thereof). by the decision of a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
He has no standing to file a petition for certiorari.
Writ of Habeas Data: Remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public Taxpayers:
official or employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting Pascual v. Sec. of Public Works
or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence The rule recognizing the right of taxpayers to assail the constitutionality of a legislation
of the aggrieved party. appropriating local or state public funds has greater application in the Philippines than
that adopted with respect to acts of Congress of the United States appropriating federal
Writ of Kalikasan: remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by funds.
law, peoples organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group The validity of a statute may only be contested by one who will sustain a direct injury as
accredited by or registered with a government agency, on behalf of person whose a consequence of its enforcement.
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology is violated or threatened by an Taxpayers have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of moneys raised
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, by taxation and therefore may question the constitutionality of statutes requiring
involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or expenditure of public moneys.
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Contra: Gonzales v. Marcos (1975)
Republic v. Gingoyon: "[T]he funds administered by the President of the Philippines came from donations [and]
Expropriation cases involve both a procedural and substantive aspect. The Congress can contributions [not] by taxation." Accordingly, there was that absence of the "requisite
always change or amened the substantive aspect through legislation, the procedural pecuniary or monetary interest."
matters are to be left to the SC as part of their rule making power.
Citizens and associations: transcendental importance:
The rule making power includes the power to suspend its own rules in particular cases in
order to do justice. Legaspi v. CSC:
The fundamental right to information on matters of public concern can be invoked in a
Limitations to rule making: Mandamus proceeding
1. Should be simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of When a Mandamus proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the requirement of
cases. personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen.
2. Should be uniform for all courts of the same grade.
3. Should not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Joya v. PCGG:
- If the rule takes away a vested right such as the right of appeal etc, then it is A writ of mandamus may be issued only when the public right to be enforced and the
not merely procedural. But if it operates only as a means of implementing an concomitant duty of the state are unequivocably set forth in the Constitution.
existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure. Court has the discretion to take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy the
requirements of an actual case or legal standing when paramount public interest is
1st Requisite: Ripe for Adjudication: involved.
Not every action filed by a taxpayer can qualify to challenge the legality of official acts
PACU v. Secretary of Education: done by the government.
An act was approved that provides that a private school must first obtain a permit from Having failed to show that they are the legal owners of the artworks or that the valued
the Secretary of Education before they can open to the public. This SC however found pieces have become publicly owned, petitioners do not possess any clear legal right
that all of the petitioners had permits and none of the permits were sought to be revoked. whatsoever to question their alleged unauthorized disposition.
The power of the Courts to declare a law unconstitutional arises only when the interests
of litigants require the use of judicial authority for their protection against actual Board of Optometry v. Colet:
interference. Thus a hypothetical threat being insufficient. Only natural and juridical persons or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil
action and every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in
Tan v. Macapagal: interest.
A resolution was being assailed saying that it was invalid because it in effect sought to Facts showing the capacity of a party to sue or the legal existence of an organized
revise the Constitution by adopting a new form of government. In this case, the proposed association of persons that is made a party must be averred
amendment was still unacted thus there is no need for interposition of judicial oversight Unregistered organizations have no standing to sue

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Individuals who are not registered optometrists cannot sue to prohibit a law regulating 2. For a taxpayer there should be an assertion that public funds are illegally
the practice of optometry for having no standing disbursed or deflected to an illegal purpose.or there is a wastage of public funds
through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.
Tondo Medical v. CA: 3. For a legislator or member of congress an act of the executive that injures the
Present substantial interest, which will enable a party to question the validity of the law, institution of congress causes derivative but nonetheless substantial injury that
requires that a party sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of its enforcement can be questioned by legislators.
it is distinguished from a mere expectancy or future, contingent, subordinate, or 4. An Organization may be granted standing to assert the irghts of its member
inconsequential interest (but the mere invocation of the IBP or any lawyer that they are pursuing it due
The rule on constitutional questions of transcendental importance cannot be invoked to their duty to preserve the rule of law does not suffice to clothe it with
where a partys substantive claim is without merit -- a partys standing is determined by standing).
the substantive merit of his case or a preliminary estimate thereof. 5. LGU can seek relief in order to protect or vindicate an interest of its own and of
the other LGUs.
Anak Mindanao v. Exec. Secretary:
For a concerned party to be allowed to raise a constitutional question, it must show that: The Court however has discretion to relax this requirement when the constitutional
a. it has personally suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of question being raised is of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance. In
the allegedly illegal conduct of the government, this case the SC said the following have locus standing:
b. the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and 1. The different provinces (North Cotabato, Zamboanga, Sultan Kudarat,
c. the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable action. etc.) because of the direct and substantial injury that they as LGUs
The transcendental importance of the issues raised must relate to the merits of the would suffer since their territories would be included in the domain of
petition BJE.
Abstract claims and Vague propositions that the implementation of the assailed orders will 2. Former Senator Pimientel, incumbent Mayor of Makati and Resident of
work injustice and violate the rights of its members cannot clothe MDOI with the requisite Cagayan dont have standing for failure to specify some right or
standing. privilege or that there is a wastage of public funds, but due to the
transcendental issues they were given standing.
Other Rules Raise at earliest opportunity & constitutionality is the very lis mota 3. Drilon and Tamano have standing as taxpayers because they asserted
of the case: that government funds would be expended for the conduct of an illegal
and unconstitutional plebiscite to delineate the BJE territory plus they
People v. Vera: invoked transcendental importance.
If Act No. 4221 really violates the Constitution, the People of the Philippines, in whose 4. Senator Roxas as member of the Senate and citizen on the
name the present action is brought, has a substantial interest in having it set aside. Of constitutional right to be informed in the matter in litigation has legal
greater import than the damage caused by the illegal expenditure of public funds is the standing.
mortal wound inflicted upon the fundamental law by the enforcement of an invalid 5. Various Muslim Organizations have legal standing since they have legal
statute. interest and stand to be benefited or prejudiced as the case may be.
As a general rule, the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest
opportunity, so that if not raised by the pleadings, ordinarily it may be raised at the trial, Effect of unconstitutionality:
and if not raised in the trial court, it will not be considered on appeal. Exception: De Agbayani v. PNB:
Courts, in the exercise of sound discretion, may determine the time when a question Prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive act must have
affecting the constitutionality of a statute should be presented. been in force and had to be complied with.
Criminal cases: although there is a very sharp conflict of authorities, it is said that the Until the judiciary declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect.
question may be raised for the first time at any stage of the proceedings, either in the Prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with.
trial court or on appeal. The actual existence of a statute, prior to such a determination (of unconstitutionality), is
Civil cases: it is the duty of a court to pass on the constitutional question, though raised an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored. The past
for the first time on appeal, if it appears that a determination of the question is necessary cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.
to a decision of the case.
A constitutional question will be considered by an appellate court at any time, where it Automatic Review:
involves the jurisdiction of the court below. People v. Mateo:
While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases
Prov. of North Cotabato: where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere,
For a party to have locus standi, one must allege such personal stake in the outcome of however, has it proscribed an intermediate review.
the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation Allowing an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals before the case is elevated to
of issues upon which the court largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional the Supreme Court on automatic review is a procedural matter within the rule-making
question. prerogative of the Supreme Court than the law-making power of Congress.

1. When the issue concerns a public right, it is sufficient that the petitioner is a
citizen and has an interest in the execution of the laws.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
Change of Venue: In Re: Letter of UP Law Faculty
People v. Gutierrez: That freedom of expression is not a defense in administrative cases against lawyers for
The courts "can by appropriate means do all things necessary to preserve and maintain using intemperate speech in open court or in court submissions can similarly be
every quality needful to make the judiciary an effective institution of government invocation of academic freedom.
One of these incidental and inherent powers of courts is that of transferring the trial of The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally
cases from one court to another of equal rank in a neighboring site, whenever the primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence
imperative of securing a fair and impartial trial, or of preventing a miscarriage of justice, or interference
so demands. No matter how firm a lawyers conviction in the righteousness of his cause there is simply
The Supreme Court possesses inherent power and jurisdiction to decree that the trial and no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the
disposition of a case pending in a CFI be transferred to another whenever: courts and the legal profession into disrepute.
the interest of justice and truth so demand
serious and weighty reasons to believe that a trial by the court that originally had PNB v. Asuncion:
jurisdiction over the case would not result in a fair and impartial trial A substantive law cannot be amended by a procedural law.
lead to a miscarriage of justice. Section 6, Rule 86 of the Revised Rules of Court cannot be made to prevail over
Article 1216 of the New Civil Code, the former being merely procedural, while the
Power to Promulgate Rules: latter, substantive.
Santero v. CFI-Cavite [bet. CC and RoC CC should prevail] Substantive law = defines rights and obligations
Petitioners claim that the respondents should not be granted allowance for support Procedural law = defines the manner of enforcing substantive rights and obligations
because they are already of age and are gainfully employed as provided in the Rules of
Court, which provides support is only for incapacitated children and spouse. The SC said People v. Lacson:
that such is a procedural rule which cannot prevail over the Civil Code which is a Lacson was charged with multiple murder. He sought the dismissal of the entire case on
substantive law (the CC says that children should be supported without distinction as to the ground that under CrimPro there is a 2 year time bar rule when a case is provisionally
whether employer or of age or not). dismissed to determine probable cause and the case is not acted on again within 2 years.
The SC however said that the 2 year time bar rule doesnt apply when the requisites are
Damasco v. Laqui (1988) [RPC (prescription) vs. CrimPro RPC] not met. In this case the provisional dismissal was done WITHOUT his consent (his
Francisco v. CA: where an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense consent should be obtained for the rule to apply) nor was there any notice given to the
includible within the graver offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense heirs that the case was to be provisionally dismissed. Furthermore the rule being sought
if it has already prescribed. application did not come into affect until after this case had already been filed and thus
While the Supreme Court has the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection cannot be made to apply retroactively. Because if it were to be applied retroactively it
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and procedure in all courts, would be against the state and contrary to the intent of the framers as it would give the
the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and the legal assistance to the state a shorter period of time (only 1 year and 3 months instead of the 2 years) within
underprivileged, such rules shall not however diminish, increase or modify substantive which to open the case again.
Supervision over the judiciary:
Baguio Market Vendors v. Cortes (2010) Ampong v. CSC:
Our two previous constitutions textualized a power sharing scheme between the Exclusive authority to discipline employees of the judiciary lies with the Supreme
legislature and this Court in the enactment of judicial rules, but the 1987 Constitution Court
textually altered the power-sharing scheme under the previous charters by deleting The Constitution provides that the Supreme Court is given exclusive administrative
Congress subsidiary and corrective power. supervision over all courts and judicial personnel.
The payment of legal fees is a vital component of the rules promulgated by this Court Administrative jurisdiction over petitioner belongs to the Supreme Court, the action
concerning pleading, practice and procedure, it cannot be validly annulled, changed or having been instituted by the CSC at the time when petitioner was already a judicial
modified by Congress as one of the safeguards of the Supreme Courts institutional employee.
independence the standard procedure is for the CSC to bring its complaint against petitioner, a
The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now the Courts judicial employee, before the OCA.
exclusive domain However, we are constrained to uphold the ruling of the CSC based on the principle
of estoppel.
In re Cunanan:
Suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at- law in the practice of the Sec. 6: The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the
profession and their supervision have been indisputably a judicial function and personnel thereof.
Congress can make a law for qualifications but such can only be a minimum and it is up Administrative supervision of lower inferior courts:
to the SC in the end to fix it. Maceda v. Vasquez:
By trying to retroactively change the passing rate, Congress is in fact trying to modify the It is only the Supreme Court that can oversee the judges and court personnels
past decision of the SC as to who the latter has chosen to admit into the practice of law. compliance with all laws, and take the proper administrative action against them if they
It is an encroachment on the prerogative of the judiciary. commit any violation thereof

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
No other branch of government may intrude into this power, without running afoul However, the Operative Fact doctrine was used to uphold the validity of the JBCs prior
by the doctrine of separation of powers. acts. (Chavez vs. JBC)
The Ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted
to it by the Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to the specific Sec. 9: The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower court shall be appointed
mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the Supreme Court over by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial Bar
all courts and their personnel, but likewise undermines the independence of the Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.
The Ombudsman should first refer the matter to the Court for determination of whether The lower courts, the President shall issue the appointments within ninety days from the
said certificates reflected the true status of his pending case load, as the Court has the submission of the list.
necessary records to make such a determination.
The Ombudsman cannot compel this Court, as one of the three branches of Sec. 10: The Salary of the Chief Justice and of the Associate Justices of the Supreme
government, to submit its records, or to allow its personnel to testify on this matter Court, and of judges of lower courts shall be fixed by law. During their continuance in
office, their salary shall not be decreased.
Sec. 7 - The salary of justices and judges are subject to income tax.
(1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate Diminution of Salary:
court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Nitafan v. CIR:
Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or Judges sought to prohibit the CIR from taxing their salaries claiming it amounted to a
more, a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines. dimunition of their salary. The SC held that it was taxable (the ruling in Perfecto v. Meer
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no that granted the exemption is discarded). The intent of the famers of the new constitution
person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a was to make the SC share in the expenses of government otherwise it would violate the
member of the Philippine Bar. uniformity of taxes and the EPC since other branches of government are taxed on the
(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, income they earn.
probity, and independence.
Sec. 11: The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office
Sec. 8: during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated
(1) A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the to discharge the duties of their office.
Supreme Court composed of the:
a. Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman, The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or
b. the Secretary of Justice order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the members who actually took part in the
c. and a representative of Congress as ex-officio members, (can be from deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
the senate or HR).
d. a representative of the Integrated Bar, Security of Tenure:
e. a processor of law, Vargas v. Rilloraza:
f. a retired member of the Supreme Court The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may only be exercised by the Chief Justice and
g. and a representative of the Private Sector. Associate Justices
(2) The regular members of the Council shall be appointed by the President for a If, according to section 4 of said Article VIII, "the Supreme Court shall be composed" of
term of four years with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. the Chief Justice and Associate Justices therein referred to, its jurisdiction can only be
exercised by it as thus composed.
Of the members first appointed, the representative of the integrated bar shall serve for To disqualify any of these constitutional component members of the Court is nothing
four years, the professor of law for three years, the retired justice for two years, and the short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself of its jurisdiction as established by the
representative of the private sector for one year. fundamental law.
(3) The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the Secretary ex-officio of the council Disqualification of a judge is a deprivation of his judicial power
and shall keep a record of its proceedings. No temporary composition of the Supreme Court is authorized by the Constitution. It is
(4) The regular members of the council shall receive such emoluments as may be one of the permanent institutions of the government.
determined by the Supreme Court. The clause "unless otherwise provided by law" found in section 4 of Article VIII can not be
The Supreme Court shall provide in its annual budget the appropriations for the Council. construed to authorize any legislation which would alter the composition of the Supreme
(5) The Council shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Court, as determined by the constitution, for however brief a time as may be imagined.
judiciary. In principle, what really matters is not the length or shortness of the alteration of the
constitutional composition of the Court, but the very permanence and unalterability of
It may exercise such other functions and duties as the Supreme Court may assign to it. that composition so long as the constitution which ordains it remains permanent and
Q: Can the JBC have 2 representatives from Congress (from each House) with
one vote each? People v. Gacott:
NO. The word Congress was used in a generic sense. It is patent that each member in a The Court en banc has power to discipline because of the grant of power to determine the
category pertains to a single individual. Moreover, there cannot be a vote, 7 member procedure.
composition of the Council was to avoid a stalemate.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
It was not intended in Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution that all administrative Francisco v. Permskul:
proceedings should be heard and decided by the whole Court. Allowing memorandum decisions is not unconstitutional
In instances involving dismissal of judges, the administrative cases must be deliberated The memorandum decision should actually embody the findings of fact and conclusions of
upon and decided by the full Court itself. law of the lower court in an annex attached to and made an indispensable part of the
It is only when the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or decision.
a fine of P10,000, or both, that the administrative matter may be decided in division For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must provide for direct access to the
facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement attached to the
$ Abolition of a judicial office is valid when done in good faith and not for political or said decision.
personal reasons. Memorandum decision should be sparingly used lest it become an addictive excuse for
A judge still sitting in the bench cannot present himself as a congressional candidate judicial sloth
since it amounts to misconduct.
The compulsory retirement age in the judiciary is seventy years. Salazar v. Margomen:
The case had to do with a charge against J. Margomen for bias and impartiality in an
Sec. 12: The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall election case. The SC said that the judge did show bias and impartiality and that he failed
not be designed to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. to state in his decision why he had invalidated 90 ballots in favor of the protestant and to
Sec. 13: The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en specify the ballots being set aside and thus violated the constitutional mandate to state
banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a clearly the law and facts on which the decision is based.
Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by
the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and Sec. 15
served upon the parties. Any Members who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
a decision or resolution, must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court,
observed by all lower collegiate courts. and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate
courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
Absence of the certification would not mean the case submitted for decision had not been (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing
reached in consultation before being assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the
of the court since the regular performance of duty is presumed (may just be the basis for court itself.
holding the official responsible), it wont make the decision invalid. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed
by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy
Sec. 14: No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties.
and distinctly the facts and law on which it is based. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be issued within said period.
refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor. (4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without
Macario Tayamura v. IAC: prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof,
A decision must express clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which it is based refers shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination,
only to decisions. Resolutions disposing of petitions fall under the provision that No without further delay.
petition for review shall be refused due course without stating the legal basis therefore.
If a court, after deliberating on a petition and subsequent pleadings, manifestations, NOTE: For Sandiganbayan the rule is a period of 3 months.
comments, or motions, decides to deny due course to the petition stating that the
questions raised are factual or that there is no reversible error, has sufficiently complied After the lapse of the reglamentary period, nothing happens to the case it remains
with the constitutional requirement. undecided, but the court is enjoined to decide the case or question without further delay.
- it can be a ground for impeachment or other disciplinary action.
Minute Resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the - Even when there is delay and no decision or resolution is made within the
deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice. prescribed period, there is NO automatic affirmance of the appealed decision.

Air France v. Carroscoso: Sec. 16: The Supreme Court shall, within thirty days from the opening of each regular
The law solely insists that a decision state the "essential ultimate facts" upon which the session of the congress, submit to the president and the Congress an annual report on
court's conclusion is drawn the operations and activities of the Judiciary.
A decision is not to be so clogged with details such that prolixity, if not confusion, may
result. So long as the decision contains the necessary facts to warrant its conclusions, it is
no error for a court to withhold therefrom "any specific - finding of facts with respect to
the evidence for the defense."
As this Court well observed, "There is no law that so requires".
The mere failure to specify (in the decision) the contentions of the appellant and the
reasons for refusing to believe them is not sufficient to hold the same contrary to the
requirements of the provisions of law and the Constitution.

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
ART. IX. CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS A lawyer who teaches law does not violate the prohibition of
practice of a profession
A. Common Provisions % Active management of a business does not prohibit a
Section 1. The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Commissioner from owning a business but it prohibits him
Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit. from being a managing officer or a member of the governing
I. Constitutional Commissions All perform key functions in the government; in board of a business which in any way may be affected by
order to protect their integrity, they have been independent constitutional the functions of his office, a qualifying phrase which does
bodies not apply to the prohibition of practice of a profession
: CSC: personnel office o Prohibition of financial interest in government contracts or franchises
: COA: auditing office applies also to contracts with subsidiaries of govt corporations
: COMELEC: administration of the electoral process : Sec.3: protects their salary from diminution during their continuance in office
: Sec.4: gives them independent powers of appointment but in accordance with
Civil Service Commission Commission on Elections Commission on Audit the Civil Service law
Chairman + 2 Chairman + 6 Chairman + 2 : Sec.5: gives them fiscal autonomy, their approved annual appropriations shall
Commissioners Commissioners be automatically and regularly released and shall not be subject to pre-audit
NBC/35/lame duck NBC/35/lame duck NBC/35/lame duck : Sec.6 : gives them authority, sitting en banc, to promulgate rules of procedure.
+ with capacity for + college degree, majority + CPA (10y), Lawyer (10y). o In case of conflict between a rule of procedure promulgated by a
administration. lawyers (10yrs experience) At NO time can all members Commission or a Rule of Court, the rule of the former should prevail if
belong to the same the proceeding is before a Commission, but if it is before a court, the
profession. Rules of Court prevail
Term: 7/5/3 without
3 members 7y Term: 7/5/3 without o The SC has NO power to disapprove Commission rules, except through
reappointment 2 members - 5y reappointment the exercise of judicial review when such rules violate the Constitution.
1 member 3y, without % These rules should not diminish, increase, or modify
reappointment substantive rights
NO temporary/acting capacity allowed. Requires consent of the Comm on Appointment % If the rules of a Commission are inconsistent with a statute,
Disqualifications are governed by Art. IX A 2 the statute prevails
: Commissioners are given a fixed term and are removable only by impeachment
Section 2. No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure, hold any
other office or employment. Neither shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in Section 7. Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its Members, any case
the active management or control of any business which, in any way, may be affected by or matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for decision
the functions of his office, nor shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the
any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the Government, any of its filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission
subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any
corporations or their subsidiaries. decision,11 order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on
certiorari12 by the aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Section. 3. The salary of the Chairman and the Commissioners shall be fixed by law and
shall not be decreased during their tenure. I. Decisions of the Commissions
: As collegial bodies, the decisions are made by the body and not by individual
Section 4. The Constitutional Commissions shall appoint their officials and employees in members
accordance with law. : No individual member may make a decision for the Commission
: Decisions are reached by majority vote of ALL its members.
Section 5. The Commission shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual o The Commissions may not promulgate a rule which requires unanimity
appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. applies whether the Commission is sitting en banc or in division
: Sets down a mandatory period within which decisions of the Commissions must
Section 6. Each Commission en banc may promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings be reached
and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules, however, shall not diminish, o If a decision is not reached within the reglamentary period, such
increase, or modify substantive rights. failure does not affect the merits of the case

I. Independence of the Commissions Fil. Engr. & Machine Shop vs. Ferrer [final orders reviewable by SC]:
: Sec.2: imposes a list of prohibitions engaging in activities which can distract For the 1998 national elections, COMELEC issued an Invitation to Bid calling for the
them from their responsibilities or subject them to pressures and temptations submission of sealed proposals for the manufacture and delivery of voting booths.
o The clause which says that a Commissioner shall not engage in the Petitioner and Acme were among the bidders. Comelec issued a resolution awarding the
practice of any profession or in the active management or control of bid to Acme subject to some conditions, which they accepted. The SC has exclusive
any business which in any way may be affected by the functions of his
Rendered in the exercise of its adjudicatory, quasi-judicial function.
Rule 64 of the RoC [except, decisions of the CSC]

%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %
jurisdiction to review on certiorari final decisions of the COMELEC relative to the conduct Gaminde vs. COA:
of elections and enforcement of election laws.13 However, an order of the COMELEC The President appointed petitioner, ad interim, as CSC Commissioner. She assumed office
awarding a contract to a private party, as a result of its choice among various proposals on June 22, 1993 after taking an oath of office. The Commission on Appointments
submitted in response of its invitation to bid does NOT come within the purview of a final confirmed it and her appointment paper stated that her term will expire on Feb. 2, 1999.
order which is exclusively and directly appealable to the SC on certiorari. What is The Office of the President opined that her term of office would instead end on Feb.2,
contemplated by the term "final orders, rulings and decisions" of the COMELEC reviewable 2000. She relied on said opinion and stayed in office even after 1999. The issue is
by certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided by law are those rendered in actions or whether petitioners term of office ends on 1999 or 2000. The SC ruled that it ended on
proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said body in the Feb.2,1999. Her successors term must be deemed to start on Feb.2,1999-Feb.2,2006.
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The terms of the first Chairmen and Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions
under the 1987 Constitution must start on a common date, irrespective of the variations
Section 8. Each Commission shall perform such other functions as may be provided by in the dates of appointments and qualifications of the appointees, in order that the
law. expiration of the first terms of 7, 5 and 3 years should lead to the regular recurrence of
the 2-year interval between the expiration of the terms. Applying the foregoing conditions
B. Civil Service Commission [Appeal: PfR to CA in 15d] to the case at bar, the appropriate starting point of the terms of office of the first
appointees to the Constitutional Commissions under the 1987 Constitution must be on
Section 1. Feb.02, 1987, the date of the adoption of the 1987 Constitution. In case of a belated
(1) The civil service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission composed of a appointment or qualification, the interval between the start of the term and the actual
Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the Philippines qualification of the appointee must be counted against the latter.
and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age, with proven
capacity for public administration, and must not have been candidates for any elective Section 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities,
position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations
with original charters.
(2) The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the (2) Appointments in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to
consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without be determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are policy-
reappointment. Of those first appointed, the Chairman shall hold office for seven years, a determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive examination.
Commissioner for five years, and another Commissioner for three years, without (3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term of the cause provided by law.
predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in a temporary or (4) No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
acting capacity. electioneering or partisan political campaign.
(5) The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government employees.
I. Organization of the Commission; Term (6) Temporary employees of the Government shall be given such protection as may be
: The Civil Service system is administered by a Civil Service Commission provided by law.
composed a Chairman and 2 Commissioners appointed by the President with the
consent of the Commission on Appointments I. Scope of the system
: Chairman and Commissioners must be: : all branches subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Govt
o Natural-born citizens o Covers not all GOCCs, but only those with original charters, that is
o At least 35 years of age at the time of their appointment those corporations that have been created by special law and not
o Proven capacity for public administration through the general corporation law
o Must not have been candidates for any elective position in the % Test for determining whether officers and employees of a
elections immediately preceding their appointment GOCC comes under the CSC system is the manner of creation
: The term of Commissioners is set at 7 years and may not be reappointed of the corporation to which they belong
o Prohibition of reappointment applies even if the Commissioner has : In terms of personnel, the system includes both officers and employees
served for les than 7 years o Employee- includes any person in the service of the govt or any
o Of the 1st Commissioners appointed, the Chairman serves for 7 years, branch thereof of whatever grade or class
another for 5, and the third for 3 o Officer- officials whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature,
% The intent in staggering the terms of the first appointees is may be considered to involve the exercise of discretion in the
to achieve continuity by not allowing the term of all performance of the functions of government, whether such duties are
Commissioners to expire all at one time precisely defined by law or not
% Every 2 years, the term of 1 Commissioner expires leaving
always 2 veteran Commissioners behind II. Under Civil Service Law
MWSS vs. Hernandez [GOCCs with charter and created by special law]:
A complaint was filed with the NLRC against petitioner for failure to pay wage
differentials, etc. MWSS contends that it was a GOCC hence the NLRC has no jurisdiction.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% The court ruled that MWSS employees are covered by the Civil Service Laws as
MWSS was created by RA6234 as a GOCC.
%Pertain to cases involving elective regional, provincial or city officials.
%Sandy%Crab%and%The%Plagiarist% Political%Law%Review!2013% %

Examples: Local water districts and PAGCOR Samson vs. CA [positions in competitive service]:
Talens, a civil service eligible, was appointed by the mayor as ASST. secretary to the
IV. GOCCs under Corporation Code [NOT covered] mayor. A new mayor succeeded where he summarily terminated Talens on the ground of
BLISS vs. Callejo [GOCCs without charter and created under Corporation Code]: loss of confidence. Under RA2260, the position of secretaries to city mayors is non-
Petitioner union filed a petition for certification election with DOLE which dismissed it competitive. The court ruled that asst. secretaries are not deemed to be non-competitive
stating that majority of BLISS is owned by the Human Settlement Devt Corp, a wholly- employees. Only secretaries are considered to be non-compettive. As a general rule,
owned govt corporation. The court ruled that BLISS is a GOCC created under the position in all branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities of the govt, including those in
Corporation law. It is without a charter, and therefore governed by the Labor Code. The GOCCs belong to the competitive service except those that are expressly declared by law
1987 Constitution provides that the civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions and to be non-competitive.
instrumentalities and agencies of the govt, including GOCCs with original charter.
Grio vs. CSC [test of confidentiality of positions]:
NOTE: applies when the government engages in contracts of service [e.g., janitorial, When petitioner assumed office as the newly elected governor of Iloilo, he informed
security services] respondents who occupied the positions of Provincial Attorney, Senior Legal Officer and
Legal Officer II that he was terminating their services based on loss of trust and
V. Classifications and Appointments confidence. Respondents appealed such termination to the CSC who ruled that such was
: Sec.2 of Art. IX is the basis for classifying positions in the civil service into illegal. The court ruled that only the position of Provincial Attorney is one of trust,
competitive and non-competitive positions [for purposes of determining merit therefore his removal is valid. But those of Senior Legal Officer and Legal Officer II are
and fitness] not confidential.
o Non-competitive: those which by their nature are policy-determining,
primarily confidential or highly technical CSC vs. Salas [nature of duties determinative of the confidentiality of position]:
o The principal significance of the classification is in relation to the Salas was appointed by the PAGCOR Chairman as Internal Security Staff member and
appointing process assigned to a casino. His employment was terminated by the PAGCOR Board of Directors
% Non-competitive positions exempts them from competitive for loss of confidence. He appealed such termination, alleging that he is not a confidential
examination as a means for determining merit and fitness employee which the CSC denied stating