POLITICAL LAW supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute
and contract (Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS).
LAST MINUTE REVIEWER
AY 2017-2018 (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel)
Disclaimer: The contents of this reviewer are from the Coffee Notes 2017 (Political Law
Compendium), Nachuras Outline Reviewer in Political Law, and MemAid. The contents were
specifically selected based from the matters, which were given emphasis, during class
discussions. This reviewer is most useful for examinations. This material has not yet been
subjected to proof-reading.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES
According to Cooley, a constitution is that body of rules and
maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty
are habitually exercised.
According to Malcolm, it is that written instrument enacted by
direct action of the people by which the fundamental powers
of the government are established, limited and defined, and by
which those powers are distributed among the several
departments for their safe and useful exercise for the benefit
of the body politic.
A constitution is firm and immovable, as a mountain amidst the
strife of storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the
waves. (Vanhorne vs. Dorrance)
A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance
and administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute
and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates
(Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS).
In Marcos vs. Manglapus, the Supreme Court held that it must be
borne in mind that the Constitution, aside from being an allocation
of power is also a social contract whereby the people have
surrendered their sovereign powers to State for the common
good.
DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY: That funda-
mental conception in other words is that it is a supreme law to
which all other laws must conform and in accordance with
which all private rights must be determined and all public
authority administered. Under the doctrine of constitutional
supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution
that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the
executive branch or entered into by private persons for private
purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus,
since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
The Philippine Constitution is a WRITTEN, ENACTED and
RIGID type of constitution. It is embodied in a single document,
enacted by the Congress acting as Constitutional Convention or
Constitutional Assembly ratified by the Filipino people in a plebiscite
called for such purpose.
CLASSIFICATIONS
1. WRITTEN OR UNWRITTEN
a. Written one whose precepts are embodied in
one document or set of documents;
b. Unwritten consist of rules which have not been
integrated into a single, concrete form but are
scattered in various sources, such as statutes of
a fundamental character, judicial decisions,
commentaries of publicists, customs and
tradition, and certain common law principles.
2. ENACTED (CONVENTIONAL) OR EVOLVED
(CUMULATIVE)
a. Enacted (Conventional) a conventional
constitution is enacted, formally struck off at a
definite time and place following a conscious or
deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or
ruler;
b. Evolved (Cumulative) it is the result of political
evolution, not inaugurated at any specific time but
changing by accretion rather than by any
systematic method.
3. RIGID OR FLEXIBLE
a. Rigid- is one that can be amended only by a
formal and usually difficult process;
b. Flexible- one that can be changed by ordinary
legislation.
QUALITIES OF A GOOD WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
1. BROAD Not just because it provides for the organization
of the entire government and covers all persons and things
within the territory of the State but because it must be
comprehensive enough to provide for every contingency.
2. BRIEF It must confine itself to basic principles to be
implemented with legislative details more adjustable to
change and easier to amend.
3. DEFINITE To prevent ambiguity in its provisions which
could result in confusion and divisiveness among the
people.
ESSENTIAL PARTS OF A GOOD WRITTEN CONSTITUTION
1. Constitution of Liberty The series of prescriptions
setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the
citizens and imposing limitations on the powers of
government as a means of securing the enjoyment of
those rights. E.g. Art. III
2. Constitution of Government The series of provisions
outlining the organization of the government, enumerating
its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 1 of 25
 administration, and defining the electorate, E.g. Arts. VI,
VII, VIII and IX
3. Constitution of Sovereignty The provisions pointing
out the mode or procedure in accordance with which
formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought,
E.g., Art. XVII
HISTORY OF PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
1. Biak-na-bato
2. Malolos
3. 1935 Constitution
4. 1943 Constitution
5. 1973 Constitution
6. 1986 Freedom Constitution
7. 1987 Constitution
The 1897 Constitution of Biak-na-Bato, or
Constituciong Halal sa Biak-na-Bato, promulgated by the
Philippine Revolutionary Government on November 1, 1897, is the
provisionary Constitution of the Philippine Republic during the
Revolution against Spain. It provides that the Supreme Council,
vested with the supreme power of government, shall conduct
foreign relations, war, the interior, and the treasury.
The 1899 Political Constitution of the Republic, known
as the Malolos Constitution, was approved by President Emilio
Aguinaldo on January 21, 1899 and served as the Constitution of
the First Philippine Republic. It provides for a parliamentary form of
government, but the President, and not a Prime Minister, acts as
the head of government. Legislative power is exercised by the
Assembly of Representatives of the Nation, and judicial power is
lodge in a Supreme Court.
The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, ratified on
May 17, 1935, establishes the Commonwealth of the Philippines,
defining its powers, composition and organization as it function as
the Government of the Philippine Islands. It is based on the principle
of separation of powers among the three branches of government.
Executive power is vested in the President and shall serve for a
single-six year term. Legislative power is vested in a unicameral
National Assembly, and judicial power is exercised by the Supreme
Court. It also provides that upon proclamation of Philippine
Independence, the Commonwealth of the Philippines shall be
known as the Republic of the Philippines. The 1939 Amendment
liberalized all laws and made few changes on the economic
provisions of the Tydings-Mcduffie Law. The 1940 Amendment, by
virtue of Resolution No. 73, provide for the establishment of a
bicameral Congress, composed of a Senate and a House of
Representatives, and limits the term of office of the President to four
years, but may continue to serve for a maximum of eight years. The
amendment also provides for the creation of a Commission on
Elections. The 1947 Amendment, known as the Parity
Amendment, gave Americans equal rights with Filipinos in the
exploitation of Philippine Natural resources.
The 1943 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, or the Constitution of the Second Philippine
Republic, was ratified by the general assembly of the KALIBAPI. It
is based on the system of separation of powers among the
executive, legislative, and the judiciary. It served as a temporary
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
constitution, for it stipulated that one year after the end of the World
War II, it shall be replaced by a new constitution.
The 1973 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, or Ang Saligang Batas ng Pilipinas, ratified by the
Citizens Assemblies on January 17, 1973, provides for a shift from
a presidential form of government to a parliamentary system. The
President serves as a symbolic head of State, executive power is
exercised by the Prime Minister with the assistance of the Cabinet,
and legislative power is vested in a unicameral National Assembly.
In 1976, the National Assembly was replaced by the Batasang
Pambansa, by virtue of PD 1033 issued by President Ferdinand
Marcos. The 1973 Constitution as amended (amended in 1981 and
1984) provides for a semi-parliamentary form of government, where
the President, no longer acts as a symbolic head, but acts as the
head of state and the chief executive. The Office of the President
has been restored to its originalstatus under the 1935 Constitution.
Legislative power is vested in a unicameral Batasang Pambansa.
The Prime Minister, who is subordinated to the President, acts as
the Head of the Cabinet.
The 1986 Provisional Constitution, popularly known
as the Freedom Constitution, promulgated by President Corazon
C. Aquino on March 25, 1986, was a provisional constitution after a
successful People Power Revolution. Under the Freedom
Constitution, executive and legislative powers are exercised by the
President, and shall continue to exercise legislative powers until a
legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution.
Furthermore, the President is mandated to convene a Constitutional
Commission tasked to draft a new charter.
The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines (In Filipino: Ang Konstitusyon ng Republika ng
Pilipinas), ratified on February 2, 1987, is the fourth fundamental
law to govern the Philippines since it became independent on July
4, 1946.
INTERPRETATION/CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION
The cases of Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS and Francisco vs. HRET
provide for the rules on constitutional construction.
1. Determine Self-Executing vs. Non Self-Executing
Provisions (Manila Prince Hotel Case Doctrine):
A provision which lays down a general principle,
such as those found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is
usually not self-executing. But a provision which is
complete in itself and becomes operative without the aid
of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which
supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants
may be enjoyed or protected, is self-executing. Thus a
constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and
extent of the right conferred and liability imposed are fixed
by the constitution itself, so 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.
2. In Case of Doubt, Constitutional Provisions are Self-
Executing (Manila Prince Hotel Case Doctrine):
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 2 of 25
 Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a
legislative act is necessary to enforce a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the
constitution are self-executing.
3. Specific Tools of Constitutional Construction
(Francisco vs. House of Representatives Case
Doctrines):
First, verba legis non est recedendum that is,
wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution
must be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed.
Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est
anima. The words of the Constitution should be
interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers.
Thus, it has been held that the Court in construing a
Constitution should bear in mind the object sought to be
accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, sought
to be prevented or remedied. Nonetheless, they must only
inform themselves with the four corners of Constitution.
Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The
words of the Constitution should be interpreted as a whole.
The members of the Constitutional Convention could not
have dedicated a provision of our Constitution merely for
the benefit of one person without considering that it could
also affect others.
These tools must be applied sequentially.
4. Extraneous Materials Can ONLY be used if the Above-
Mentioned Rules Fail:
While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult
the debates and proceedings of the constitutional
convention in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of
the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may be had only
when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless
to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is
clear.
CHANGES IN THE CONSTITUTION
A constitution is likened to a traveler, as it cannot stand-
still for it must cater to the exigencies of time.
ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may
be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of
at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters,
of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment
under this section shall be authorized within five years following the
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of
all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such
a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty
days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such
amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days
after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the
sufficiency of the petition.
AMENDMENT broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deletes without altering the basic principle involved. It implies
such an addition or change within the lines of the original
instrument, as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the
purpose for which it was framed.
REVISION broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle
in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of
powers or the system of checks-and-balances. There is also
revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the
constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of
the constitution.
To determine whether a change in the constitution is an amendment
or a revision, courts have developed a two-part test: the
quantitative test and the qualitative test.
1. QUANTITATIVE TEST asks whether the proposed
change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change
directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the
deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions." The
court examines only the number of provisions affected and
does not consider the degree of the change.
2. QUALITATIVE TEST inquires into the qualitative effects
of the proposed change in the constitution. The main
inquiry is whether the change will "accomplish such far
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental
plan as to amount to a revision." Whether there is an
alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject
of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic
governmental plan" includes "change in its fundamental
framework or the fundamental powers of its Branches." A
change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also
includes changes that "jeopardize the traditional form of
government and the system of check and balances.
(Lambino vs. COMELEC)
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 3 of 25
It is necessary to determine the character of the proposed change
because different procedure applies and initiative by people can
only propose amendments.
STEPS IN AMENDING/REVISING THE CONSTITUTION:
1. Proposal (Sections 1-3, Art. XVII): A proposal for
revision may come from (a) Congress or (b) Constitutional
Convention; A proposal for amendments may come from
(a) Congress, (b) Constitutional Convention, or (c) People,
through the power of initiative.
As to Peoples Initiative, see Sec. 2, Art. XVII for
the necessary number of signatories of the petition. The
petition must be authored by the people, thus they must
sign the entire proposal; no agent or representative can
sign on ones behalf. The proposal must likewise be
embodied in the petition (RA6735; Lambino v COMELEC).
Note: No amendment in this manner shall be authorized
following ratification more often than once every five years
thereafter.
2. Approval
a. In determining the necessary vote for the act of
the Congress, as a Constituent Assembly,
approving the proposal, all its members shall
mean in reference to the ABSOLUTE NUMBER
OF SEATS in the Congress, VOTING
SEPARATELY.
b. As to a Constitutional Convention, upon being
called upon by the Congress, the necessary vote
to approve proposals is only the MAJORITY of
the members the Constitutional Convention.
c. In cases of Peoples Initiative, a petition is
deemed approved and subject for ratification
upon CERTIFICATION by the COMELEC of the
sufficiency of the petition.
3. Ratification (Section 4, Art. XVII): The ratification
process will depend on the mode of proposal.
a. A proposal for amendments or revision made
under Sec. 1 (by Congress or by Constitutional
Convention) shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite, which
shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor
later than ninety days after the approval of
such amendment or revision.
b. A proposal for amendment made under Sec. 2
(by Peoples Initiative) shall be valid when ratified
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite,
which shall be held not earlier than sixty days
nor later than ninety days after the
certification by the Commission on Elections
of the sufficiency of the petition.
The Congress CANNOT DIRECTLY amend or revise the
Constitution, through the exercise of its LEGISLATIVE
POWER. It can only PROPOSE AMENDMENTS or REVISIONS,
through the exercise of its CONSTITUENT POWER, acting as a
Constituent Assembly. The Congress may likewise call into
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
existence a Constitutional Convention, which can PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS or REVISIONS. On the other hand, the People
through initiative can only PROPOSE AMENDMENTS and
NOT A REVISION. There is only a proposal, because the
amendments or revisions must still be ratified by the people in
a plebiscite called for that purpose.
The power to propose amendments and revisions to the
Constitution is not included in the general grant of legislative
powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent powers of the people,
as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours
to make and hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law.
Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution
merely because the same explicitly grants such power. Hence,
when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members
of the House of Representatives act, not as members of
Congress, but as component elements of a constituent
assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive
their authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when
performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate
from the Constitution - they are the very source of all powers of
government, including the Constitution itself. Constituent power is
not inherent to the Congress (Gonzales vs. COMELEC).
In the case of Gonzales vs. COMELEC, it was also ruled that the
Congress can both make a proposal and call for a Constitutional
Convention.
The Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, may propose
amendments or revisions or call a Constitutional Convention;
AND as a Legislative Body, may provide for the details of the
Constitutional Convention. While the authority to call a
Constitutional Convention is vested with the Congress, acting as a
Constituent Assembly, the power to enact the implementing details
DOES NOT EXCLUSIVELY pertain to the Congress, acting as a
Constituent Assembly. Such implementing details are ALSO
matters within the competence of Congress in the exercise of its
comprehensive legislative power, which power encompasses all
matters not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or
removed by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative action. And
as long as such statutory details do not clash with any specific
provisions of the Constitution, they are valid (Imbong vs. Ochoa).
The use of the word election in the singular meant that the entire
Constitution must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only.
Thus, submission for ratification of piece-meal amendments by the
Constitutional Convention was disallowed (Tolentino vs.
COMELEC).
Ratification of the Constitution may be held simultaneously in a
general election. The proposed constitutional amendments may be
submitted at a plebiscite scheduled on the SAME DAY as the
regular elections. What is important, in case that the plebiscite is
conducted in the same day as a general election, is that there are
two distinct and separate elections, characterized in the ballots.
The proposal need not the approval of the President. The President
cannot likewise propose any amendment or revision of the
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 4 of 25
Constitution, but he may not be prevented from submitting them as
recommendations to Congress, which in turn can act upon them
pursuant to the mandated legal procedures.
In Sanidad vs. COMELEC, the Court held that the exercise of the
power to propose amendment or revision is a justiciable
controversy, thus a JUDICIAL QUESTION. However, once it has
been ratified, it ceases to be justiciable; thus a POLITICAL
QUESTION, which the Court must inhibit itself from reviewing.
THE CONCEPT OF STATE
ARTICLE I
NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all
the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories
over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting
of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, including its territorial
sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas. The waters around, between, and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
ARTICLE II
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES
PRINCIPLES
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
STATE is a community of persons, more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory,
independent of external control, and possessing a government
to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
(Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos Rueda)
ELEMENTS OF A STATE
1. People
2. Territory
3. Government
4. Sovereignty
PEOPLE
As an element of a state, people simply means a community of
persons sufficient in number and capable of maintaining the
continued existence of the community and held together by a
common bond of law. It is of no legal consequence if they possess
diverse racial, cultural, or economic interests.
Adequate number for self-sufficiency and defense, and of both
sexes for perpetuity. Accordingly, at least some portion of the
people must be citizens of the State.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
TERRITORY
Sec.1, Art. I of the 1987 Constitution provides for the coverage of
the territory of the Republic of the Philippines. It extends to the (a)
Philippine Archipelago and (b) all other territories which the
Philippines exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction. The components
of a territory are terrestrial, fluvial, maritime, and aerial domains.
MODE OF ACQUIRING TERRITORY
1. Prescription
2. Accretion
3. Cession
4. Occupation
ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE: It is a principle where appropriate
points are set along the coast of the archipelago including the
outermost islands and then connect those points with straight
baselines. All waters within the baselines are considered internal
waters of the archipelago state. It is adopted in the constitution
when it says that, the water around, between and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines.
BASELINE LAWS: Baselines laws are nothing but statutory
mechanisms for UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with precision
the extent of their maritime zones and continental shelves. It gives
notice to the rest of the international community of the scope of the
maritime space and submarine areas within which States parties
exercise treaty-based rights, namely, the exercise of sovereignty
over territorial waters (Article 2), the jurisdiction to enforce customs,
fiscal, immigration, and sanitation laws in the contiguous zone
(Article 33), and the right to exploit the living and non-living
resources in the exclusive economic zone (Article 56) and
continental shelf (Article 77) (Magallona v. Ermita).
STRAIGHT BASELINE METHOD: Imaginary straight lines are
drawn enclosing the outermost points of outermost islands of the
archipelago, enclosing an area the ratio of which should not be
more than 9:1 (water to land); provided that the drawing of baselines
shall not depart, to any appreciable extent, from the general
configuration of the archipelago. The waters within the baselines
shall be considered internal waters; while the breadth of the
territorial sea shall then be measured from the baselines.
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 5 of 25
UN CONVENTION OF THE LAW OF THE SEA:
1. 12 nautical miles from the baseline Territorial Sea
(Exercise Sovereignty)
2. 24 nautical miles from the baseline Contiguous Zone
(Regulations on Customs, Fiscal, Immigration, Sanitation)
3. 200 nautical miles from the baseline Exclusive Economic
Zone (Right to exploit living and non-living resources)
Although the contiguous zone and most of the exclusive economic
zone may not, technically, be part of the territory of the State,
nonetheless, the coastal State enjoys preferential rights over the
marine resources found within these zones.
The contention that 15,000 square nautical miles of territorial waters
under RA 9522 was lost is not correct. RA 9522, by optimizing the
location of base points, increased the Philippines total maritime
space (covering its internal waters, territorial sea and exclusive
economic zone) by 145, 216 square nautical miles. The reach of the
exclusive economic zone drawn under RA 9522 even extends way
beyond the waters covered by the rectangular demarcation under
the Treaty of Paris. Of course, where there are overlapping
exclusive economic zones of opposite or adjacent States, there will
have to be a delineation of maritime boundaries in accordance with
UNCLOS III (Magallona v. Ermita).
In Magallona vs. Ermita, the Court further enunciated that two
problems may arise in case the Philippines does not comply by the
UNCLOS III. By not complying, (1) it will be an open invitation for
other states to exploit our resources, and (2) it will weaken our
countrys standpoint in claims involving maritime disputes.
The demarcation of the baselines enables the Philippines to delimit
its exclusive economic zone, reserving solely to the Philippines the
exploitation of all living and non-living resources within such zone.
Such a maritime delineation binds the international community
since the delineation is in strict observance of UNCLOS III. If the
maritime delineation is contrary to UNCLOS III, the international
community will of course reject it and will refuse to be bound by it.
UNCLOS III favors States with a long coastline like the Philippines.
UNCLOS III creates a sui generis maritime space- the exclusive
economic zone- in waters previously part of the high seas. UNCLOS
III grants new rights to coastal States to exclusively exploit the
resources found within this zone up to 200 nautical miles. UNCLOS
III, however, preserves the traditional freedom of navigation of other
States that attached to this zone beyond the territorial sea before
UNCLOS III (Magallona v. Ermita).
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Article 121 of UNCLOS III provides: "Regime of islands.
1. An island is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded
by water, which is above water at high tide.
2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3, the territorial sea,
the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the
provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.
3. Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or
economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone
or continental shelf."
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
GOVERNMENT
The agency or instrumentality, through which the will of the State is
formulated, expressed and realized.
Government, as an element of a state, is defined as that institution
or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes
and carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable
men to live in a social state, or which are imposed upon the people
forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of
prescribing them.
Traditional functions of the government:
1. Constituent mandatory for the government to perform
because they constitute the very bonds of society, such as
the maintenance of peace and order, regulation of property
and property rights, etc.
a. The keeping of order and providing for the
protection of persons and property from violence
and robbery.
b. The fixing of the legal relations between man and
wife and between parents and children.
c. The regulation of the holding, transmission, and
interchange of property, and the determination of
its liabilities for debt or for crime.
d. The determination of contract rights between
individuals.
e. The definition and punishment of crime.
f. The administration of justice in civil cases.
g. The determination of the political duties,
privileges, and relations of citizens.
h. Dealings of the state with foreign powers: the
preservation of the state from external danger or
encroachment and the advancement of its
international interests (Bacani v. Nacoco).
2. Ministrant those intended to promote the welfare,
progress and prosperity of the people, and which are
merely optional for government to perform. Merely
optional.
The most important of the ministrant functions
are: public works, public education, public charity,
health and safety regulations, and regulations of trade
and industry. The principles determining whether or not a
government shall exercise certain of these optional
functions are: (1) that a government should do for the
public welfare those things which private capital
would not naturally undertake and (2) that a
government should do these things which by its very
nature it is better equipped to administer for the public
welfare than is any private individual or group of
individuals. (Bacani v. Nacoco)
However, in PVTA vs CIR, the Court noted that the distinction
between the two functions had become blurred. "The growing
complexities of modern society, however, have rendered this
traditional classification of the functions of government quite
unrealistic, not to say obsolete. The areas which used to be left to
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 6 of 25
private enterprise and initiative and which the government was
called upon to enter optionally, and only "because it was better
equipped to administer for the public welfare than is any private
individual or group of individuals", continue to lose their well-defined
boundaries and to be absorbed within activities that the government
must undertake in its sovereign capacity if it is to meet the
increasing social challenges of the times. Here as almost
everywhere else the tendency is undoubtedly towards a greater
socialization of economic forces. Here of course this development
was envisioned, indeed adopted as a national policy, by the
Constitution itself in its declaration of principle concerning the
promotion of social justice."
DOCTINE OF PARENS PATRIAE: Literally, parent of the people.
As such, the government may act as guardian of the rights of the
people who may be disadvantaged or suffering from some disability
or misfortune (GRP v. Monte de Piedad).
CLASSIFICATIONS OF GOVERNMENT
As to the existence or absence of title and/or
control/legitimacy:
1. De jure has a rightful title but no power or control, either
because the same has been withdrawn from it or because
it has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof. It
is one established by authority of legitimate sovereign. A
de jure government is a government of right; a government
established according to the Constitution of the State, and
lawfully entitled to recognition and supremacy and the
administration of the State but is actually ousted from
power or control, it is the true and lawful government.
2. De facto actually exercises power of control but without
legal title. It is one established in defiance of the legitimate
sovereign. A de facto government, on the other hand, is
that government which unlawfully gets the possession and
control of the rightful legal government, and maintains
itself there by force and arms against the will of the rightful
legal government, and claims to exercise the powers
thereof. It is a government of fact.
a. De facto proper government that gets
possession and control of, or usurps, by force or
by the voice of the majority, the rightful legal
government and maintains itself against the will
of the latter.
b. De facto government of paramount force
established and maintained by military forces
who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy
in the course of war.
c. Independent government established by the
inhabitants of the country who rise in insurrection
against the parent state, such as the government
of the Southern Confederacy in revolt against the
Union during the war of secession (Co Kim Cham
v. Valdez Tan Keh).
As to concentration of powers in a governmental branch:
1. Presidential there is separation of executive and
legislative powers.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
2. Parliamentary there is fusion of executive and
legislative powers in parliament, although the actual
exercise of executive powers is vested in a Prime Minister
who is chosen by, and accountable to, Parliament.
As to centralization of control:
1. Unitary one in which the control of national and local
affairs is exercised by the central or national government;
single, centralized government, exercising powers over
both the internal and external affairs of the State.
2. Federal one in which the powers of the government are
divided between two sets of organs, one for the national
affairs and the other for local affairs, each organ being
supreme within its own sphere; consists of autonomous
local government units merged into a single state, with
national government exercising a limited degree of power
over the domestic affairs but generally full discretion of the
external affairs of the State.
ACT OF STATE: In its broadest sense, it is an exercise of
sovereign power which cannot be challenged, controlled or
interfered with by municipal courts. It refers to the political acts of a
State which are exercised as exclusive prerogatives by the political
departments of the government and not subject to judicial review
and for the consequences of which, even when affecting private
interests, they will not hold legally responsible those who command
or perform them.
In its limited sense, it refers to the acts taken by the State
concerning as affecting aliens, like the inherent right of every
sovereign State to exclude resident aliens, like the inherent right of
every sovereign State to exclude resident aliens from its territory
when their continued presence is no longer desirable from the
standpoint of its domestic interest and tranquility.
SOVEREIGNTY
The supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a State by which
that State is governed (Laurel v. Misa).
Juristically speaking, sovereignty means the supreme,
uncontrollable power, the jures sumi imperri, the absolute right to
govern. It is the supreme will of the State, the power to make laws
and enforce them by all the means of coercion it cares to employ.
DUAL ASPECTS OF SOVEREIGNTY
1. Internal- which means the supremacy of a person or body
of persons in the State over the individuals or association
of individuals within the area of its jurisdiction
2. External- which means the absolute independence of one
State as a whole with reference to the other States.
External sovereignty is nothing more than the freedom of
the Sate from subjection to or control by a foreign State,
that is the supremacy of the State as against all foreign
wills.
DOCTRINE OF AUTO-LIMITATION: It is the doctrine wherein the
Philippines adheres to the exercise of its sovereignty. It means that
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 7 of 25
any state may, by its consent, express or implied, submit to a
restriction of its sovereign rights (Reagan v. CIR).
EFFECTS OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION: There is no change
in sovereignty. Sovereignty is not suspended; what is suspended is
the exercise of the rights of sovereignty, with the control and
government of the territory occupied by the enemy passes
temporarily to the occupant.
Political laws, except those of treason, are merely
suspended. The reason for the exception on the crime of treason is
that because citizens owe absolute and permanent allegiance to
their country. Accordingly, suspension of political laws does not
apply to enemies at war.
On the other hand, municipal laws remain in force unless
changed by the belligerent occupant. Municipal laws remain in
force, because they regulate the relations between private
individuals in order to preserve public order (Laurel v. Misa).
Political laws are those laws regulating the relations
sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. Examples are laws
on citizenship, right of assembly, freedom of speech, press, etc.
Non-political (municipal) laws are those which regulate the social,
economic, or commercial life of the country of the inhabitants with
each other. Examples are civil, or commercial laws.
PRINCIPLE OF JUS POSTILIMINIUM: At the end of the
occupation, when the occupant is ousted from the territory, the
political laws which had been suspended during the occupation
shall automatically become effective again (Peralta v. Dir. Of
Prisons.) In the same vein, political laws of the belligerent
occupants are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly
re-enacted by the affirmative act of the new sovereign. Municipal
laws remain in force. Municipal laws which are inconsistent with
those of the occupied territory require a proclamation to be declared
inoperative (Macariola v. Asuncion).
During belligerent occupation, judicial decisions rendered by
the invader continue its force and effect even after the
cessation of the invasion. The fact that the belligerent occupant
is a treacherous aggressor, as Japan was, does not, therefore,
exempt him from complying with said precepts of the Hague
Conventions, nor does it make null and void the judicial acts of the
courts continued by the occupant in the territory occupied. To deny
validity to such judicial acts would benefit the invader or aggressor,
who is presumed to be intent upon causing as much harm as
possible to the inhabitants or nationals of the enemy's territory, and
prejudice the latter; it would cause more suffering to the conquered
and assist the conqueror or invader in realizing his nefarious design;
in fine, it would result in penalizing the nationals of the occupied
territory, and rewarding the invader or occupant for his acts of
treachery and aggression. As there are vested rights which have
been acquired by the parties by virtue of such judgments, the
restored government or its representative cannot reverse or
abrogate them without causing wrong or injury to the interested
parties, because such reversal would deprive them of their
properties without due process of law (Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan
Keh).
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
EFFECTS OF A REVOLUTIONARY GOVERNMENT: A revo-
lutionary government is bound by no constitution. However, the
revolutionary government did not repudiate the Covenant or the
Declaration in the same way it repudiated the Constitution. After
installing itself as a de jure government, the revolutionary
government could not escape responsibility for the States good
faith compliance with its treaty obligations under international law.
During the interregnum when no constitution or bill of rights existed,
directives and orders issued by the government officers were
validso long as these officers did not exceed the authority granted
them by the revolutionary government. The directives and orders
should not have also violated the Covenant or the Declaration
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, GR. 104768, July 21, 2003).
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
Article XVI, Sec. 3: The State may not be sued without its consent.
There can be no legal right against the authority which makes
the law on which the right depends (Republic v. Villasor).
However, it may be sued if it gives consent, whether express or
implied. The doctrine is also known as the Royal Prerogative of
Dishonesty.
Waiver of immunity by the State does not mean a concession
of its liability. By consenting to be sued, the State does not
necessarily admit that it is liable. In such a case, the State is merely
giving the plaintiff a chance to prove that the State is liable, but the
State retains the right to raise all lawful defenses.
Waiver of immunity is legislative in nature, and therefore the
same cannot be given by the President (Republic vs Sandoval)
or other administrative officers (VMPSI vs CA).
A suit is against the State, when:
1. The Republic is sued by name;
2. The suit is against an unincorporated agency; or
3. When the suit is on its face against a government officer,
but the case issue that ultimate liability will belong not to
the officer, but to the government.
Note: The Doctrine of State Immunity applies to
complaints filed against officials of the State for
acts performed by them in the discharge of their
duties, within the scope of their authority. A suit
against public officers in the discharge of official
functions, which are governmental in character is
a suit against the State.
Thus, the test is if the enforcement of the decision rendered
against the public officer or agency impleaded will require an
affirmative act from the State (Sanders vs Veridiano).
General Rule: The State may not be sued.
Exception: When it gives its consent.
Forms of Consent
1. Express Consent
a. General Law:
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 8 of 25
 i. Act No. 3083 and CA 327, as
amended by PD 1445: Money claims
arising from contracts which could serve
as a basis of civil action between private
parties to be first filed with COA, before
a suit may be filed in court. The COA
must act upon the claim within sixty (60)
days. Rejection of the claim authorizes
the claimant to elevate the matter to the
Supreme Court on certiorari.
ii. Local Government Code, Sec. 22, par
2: LGUs have the power to sue and be
sued
b. Special Law (Merritt vs Government of the
Philippine Islands)
2. Implied Consent
a. When the State commences litigation, it
becomes vulnerable to counterclaim. However,
as an exception, when the State intervenes not
for the purpose of asking an affirmative relief, but
only for the purpose of resisting the claim
precisely because of immunity from suit, there is
no waiver.
b. When the State enters into a business
contract. But, it is necessary to distinguish
whether between sovereign and governmental
acts (jure imperii) and private, commercial and
proprietary acts (jure gestionis). The result is
that State immunity now extends only to acts
jure imperii.
The restrictive application of State
immunity is proper only when the proceedings
arise out of commercial transactions of the
foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or
economic affairs. Stated differently, a State may
be said to have descended to the level of an
individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly
given its consent to be sued only when it enters
into business contracts. It does not apply where
the contract relates to the exercise of its
sovereign functions. In this case the projects are
an integral part of the naval base which is
devoted to the defense of both the United States
and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the
government of the highest order; they are not
utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or
business purposes (US v Guinto).
c. When it would be inequitable for the State to
claim immunity. The immunity may not be
invoked as a shield, in the same manner that it
cannot serve as an instrument in perpetrating an
injustice (Amigable vs Cuenca).
Rules Regarding Suits Against Government Agencies
1. In cases of INCORPORATED agencies, which has a
separate and distinct personality from the State, having a
charter of its own, such as GOCCs, attention must be
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
given whether the charter provides that it has a right to sue
and be sued. In such cases, it is an express consent.
If the charter is silent, inquiry to its function based
on the purpose for which it was created may be made.
In case if it is incorporated under the Corporation
Code, it has a right to sue and be sued, thus an express
consent. Note: Municipal Corporations are now covered
by Sec. 22 of the LGC.
2. In cases of UNINCORPORATED agencies, inquiry must
be made as to their principal functions and purpose.
If it primarily performs governmental functions, it
is not suable, even in the exercise of proprietary functions
incidental or indispensable to its governmental functions.
(Bureau of Printing vs BPEA; Mobil Philippines
Exploration, Inc. vs Customs Arrastre Service and Bureau
of Customs) If it primarily performs proprietary functions, it
is suable.
SCOPE OF CONSENT
Consent to be sued does not include consent to the execution of
judgment against it. Such execution will require another waiver,
because the power of the court ends when the judgment is
rendered, since government funds and properties may not be
seized under writs of execution or garnishment, unless such
disbursement is covered by the corresponding appropriation as
required by law (Republic vs Villasor).
STATE IMMUNITY OF FOREIGN STATES
Immunity is enjoyed by other States, consonant with the public
international law principle of par in parem non habet imperium. The
Head of State, who is deemed the personification of the State, is
inviolable, and thus, enjoys immunity from suit.
The process done whenever a foreign state is sued and
pleads its immunity form suit is called SUGGESTION.
In the United States, the procedure followed is the process
of suggestion, where the foreign State or the international
organization sued in an American court requests the Secretary of
State to make a determination as to whether it is entitled to
immunity. If the Secretary of State finds that the defendant is
immune from suit, he, in turn, asks the Atttorney General to submit
to the court a suggestion that the defendant is entitled to immunity.
In England, a similar procedure is followed, only the
Foreign Affairs Office issues a certification to that effect instead of
submitting a suggestion.
In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign
government or the international organization to first secure an
executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or diplomatic
immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Affairs Office
conveys its endorsement to the courts varies (The Holy See vs
Del Rosario, Jr.).
ARTICLE II: DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
POLICIES
The provisions of Art. II are not intended to be self-executing
principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They do not
embody judicially enforceable rights, but guidelines for legislation.
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 9 of 25
Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
Essential features of Republicanism
1. Representation
2. Renovation
Manifestations of Republicanism
1. Ours is a government of Laws and not of men
(Villavicencio v Lukban).
2. Rule of Majority
3. Accountability of public officials
4. Bill of rights
5. Legislature cannot pass Irrepealable laws
6. Separation of powers
A republican government is a government of the people, by the
people, and for the people, a representative government wherein
the powers and duties of government are exercised and discharged
for the common good and welfare (Guido vs. Rural progress
Administration).
Some characteristics of a republican form of government are:
1. The people do not govern themselves directly but through
their representatives;
2. It is founded upon popular suffrage; and
3. There is the tripartite system of government, the mutual
interdependence of the three (3) departments of
government (Vargas vs. Rilloraza).
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them. (Sec. 1, Art. II, 1987 Constitution). The
ultimate power resides in the people. The acts of their
representatives are merely manifestations of such sovereignty.
Whatever power their elected representatives have are their own
powers, exercised only through such elected officials. Such power
the elected officials have is only borrowed from the people.
Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity
with all nations.
DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION: By virtue of this clause, our
Courts have applied the rules of international law in a number of
cases even if such rules had not previously been subject of statutory
enactments, because these generally accepted principles of
international law are automatically part of our own laws.
Generally accepted principles of international law refers
to norms of general or customary international law which are
binding on all States, i.e., renunciation of war as an instrument of
national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, a persons right
to life, liberty, and due process and pacta sunt servanda, among
others.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION: International law principle is
transformed into domestic law through a constitutional mechanism,
such as local legislation.
Treaties become part of the law of the land through
transformation pursuant to Section VII, Article 21 of the Constitution
which provides that no treaty or international agreement shall be
valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all
the members of the Senate. Thus, treaties or conventional
international law must go through a process prescribed by the
Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be
applied to domestic conflicts (Pharmaceutical & Health Care Assn.
of the Phil vs. Health secretary Duque, et al).
Rule in case of conflict between a rule of international law and
the provisions of the constitution or statute of the local state:
1. Efforts should first to be exerted to harmonize them, so as
to give effect to both.
2. In case the conflict is irreconcilable, jurisprudence dictates
that the municipal courts should uphold municipal law.
Note: Qualify if the issue is presented before the:
Local courts, municipal laws will prevail; International
tribunals, international laws will prevail.
Section 3. Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the
military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the
people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the
State and the integrity of the national territory.
How is civilian supremacy ensured or institutionalized?
1. The installation of the President, the highest civilian
authority, as the commander-in-chief of all the armed
forces of the Philippines.
2. The requirement that the members of the AFP swear to
uphold and defend the Constitution, which is the
fundamental law of the land.
Note: But this does not mean that civilian officials are superior to
military officials. Civilian official are superior to military officials only
when a law makes them so.
In relation to Martial Law: Art. VII, Section 18. The President shall
be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines
and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to 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 days, suspend
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or
any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person
or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote
of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session,
may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation
shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the
Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it.
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 10 of 25
 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.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis
of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must
promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction
on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are
able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
Section 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, all citizens may be required,
under conditions provided by law, to render personal, military or civil
service.
The National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes compulsory
military service, does not go against this constitutional provision but
is, on the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The duty of the
Government to defend the State cannot be performed except
through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will
of the citizens would be to make this duty of the Government
excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to
enlist therein. It was said that, without violating the Constitution, a
person may be compelled by force, if need be, against his will,
against his pecuniary interests, and even against his religious or
political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his
country, and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense
(People vs Lagman and Zosa).
Section 5. The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of
life, liberty, and property, and promotion of the general welfare are
essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.
Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
It means that the State should not use its money and coercive power
to establish religion. It should not support a particular religion. The
State is prohibited from interfering with purely ecclesiastical affairs.
The church is likewise prohibited from meddling in purely secular
affairs. But it does not mean that there is total or absolute
separation. The better rule is symbiotic relations between the
church and State.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
Reinforced By:
1. Sec. 5, Art. III (freedom of religion clause)
2. Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-C (religious sect cannot be registered as
a political party)
3. Sec. 5(2), Art. VI (no sectoral representative from the
religious sector)
4. Sec. 29(2), Art. VI (prohibition against appropriation for
sectarian benefit.
Exceptions:
1. Sec. 28(3), Art. VI (churches, parsonages, etc., actually,
directly and exclusively used for religious purposes shall
be exempt from taxation)
2. Sec. 29(2), Art. VI (prohibition against appropriation for
sectarian benefit, except when priest, etc., is assigned to
the armed forces, or to any penal institution or government
orphanage or leprosarium
3. Sec. 3(3), Art. XIV (optional religious instruction for public
elementary and high school students)
4. Sec. 4(2), Art. XIV (Filipino ownership requirement for
educational institutions, except those established by
religious groups and mission boards.
Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds
and elevates man to his Creator is recognized. (Aglipay vs Ruiz)
Civil Courts will not interfere in the internal affairs of a religious
organization except for the protection of civil or property rights.
Those rights may be the subject of litigation in a civil court, and the
courts have jurisdiction to determine controverted claims to the title,
use, or possession of church property.
In the leading case of Fonacier v Court of Appeals, the SC
enunciated the doctrine that in disputes involving religious
institutions or organizations, there is one area which the court
should not touch: doctrinal and disciplinary differences.
The definition of religion has been expanded to include even non-
theistic beliefs such as Taoism or Zen Buddhism. It has been
proposed that basically, a creed must meet four criteria to qualify as
religion under the First Amendment. First, there must be belief in
God or some parallel belief that occupies a central place in the
believers life. Second, the religion must involve a moral code
transcending individual belief, i.e., it cannot be purely
subjective. Third, a demonstrable sincerity in belief is
necessary, but the court must not inquire into the truth or
reasonableness of the belief. Fourth, there must be some
associational ties, although there is also a view that religious
beliefs held by a single person rather than being part of the
teachings of any kind of group or sect are entitled to the
protection of the Free Exercise Clause. (Estrada vs Escritur)
Test to Determine Validity of Governmental Regulation
Touching on the Wall of Separation (Lemon Test)
1. It has a secular legislative purpose;
2. It neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. It does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 11 of 25
 In Estrada vs Escritur, the Court discussed the TWO
identifiably different, even opposing , strains of jurisprudence on the
religion clauses.
First is THE STANDARD OF SEPARATION, which may
take the form of either (a) strict separation or (b) the tamer version
of strict neutrality or separation , or what Mr. Justice Carpio refers
to as the second theory of governmental neutrality.
Although the latter form is not as hostile to religion as the
former , both are anchored on the Jeffersonian premise that a wall
of separation must exist between the state and the Church to
protect the state from the church . Both protect the principle of
church-state separation with a rigid reading of the principle.
On the other hand, the second standard, the
BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY OR ACCOMMODATION, is
buttressed by the view that the wall of separation is meant to protect
the church from the state.
FIRST STANDARD (Strict Separation and Strict Neutrality or
Separation): The STRICT SEPARATIONIST believes that the
Establishment Clause was meant to protect the state from the
church, and the states hostility towards religion allows no
interaction between the two. According to this Jeffersonian view, an
absolute barrier to formal interdependence of religion and state
needs to be erected. Religious institutions could not receive aid,
whether direct or indirect, from the state. Nor could the state adjust
its secular programs to alleviate burdens the programs placed on
believers. Only the complete separation of religion from politics
would eliminate the formal influence of religious institutions and
provide for a free choice among political views, thus a strict wall of
separation is necessary.
Strict separation faces difficulties, however, as it is deeply
embedded in American history and contemporary practice that
enormous amounts of aid, both direct and indirect, flow to religion
from government in return for huge amounts of mostly indirect aid
from religion. For example, less than twenty-four hours after
Congress adopted the First Amendments prohibition on laws
respecting an establishment of religion, Congress decided to
express its thanks to God Almighty for the many blessings enjoyed
by the nation with a resolution in favor of a presidential proclamation
declaring a national day of Thanksgiving and Prayer. Thus, strict
separationists are caught in an awkward position of claiming a
constitutional principle that has never existed and is never likely to.
The tamer version of the strict separationist view, the STRICT
NEUTRALITY OR SEPARATIONIST VIEW, (or, the governmental
neutrality theory) finds basis in Everson v. Board of Education,
where the Court declared that Jeffersons wall of separation
encapsulated the meaning of the First Amendment.
However, unlike the strict separationists, the strict
neutrality view believes that the wall of separation does not require
the state to be their adversary. Rather, the state must be NEUTRAL
in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers.
State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than
it is to favor them. The strict neutrality approach is not hostile to
religion, but it is strict in holding that religion may not be used as a
basis for classification for purposes of governmental action ,
whether the action confers rights or privileges or imposes duties or
obligations. Only secular criteria may be the basis of government
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
action. It does not permit, much less require, accommodation of
secular programs to religious belief.
The problem with the strict neutrality approach, however,
is if applied in interpreting the Establishment Clause, it could lead
to a de facto voiding of religious expression in the Free Exercise
Clause. As pointed out by Justice Goldberg in his concurring
opinion in Abington School District v. Schempp] strict neutrality
could lead to a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and
a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious which is
prohibited by the Constitution. Professor Laurence Tribe
commented in his authoritative treatise, viz: To most observers. . .
strict neutrality has seemed incompatible with the very idea of a free
exercise clause. The Framers, whatever specific applications they
may have intended, clearly envisioned religion as something
special; they enacted that vision into law by guaranteeing the free
exercise of religion but not, say, of philosophy or science. The strict
neutrality approach all but erases this distinction. Thus it is not
surprising that the [U.S.] Supreme Court has rejected strict
neutrality, permitting and sometimes mandating religious
classifications.
Thus, the dilemma of the separationist approach, whether
in the form of strict separation or strict neutrality, is that while the
Jeffersonian wall of separation captures the spirit of the American
ideal of church-state separation, in real life, church and state are
not and cannot be totally separate. This is all the more true in
contemporary times when both the government and religion are
growing and expanding their spheres of involvement and activity,
resulting in the intersection of government and religion at many
points.
SECOND STANDARD (Benevolent Neutrality/Accommodation):
The theory of benevolent neutrality or accommodation is premised
on a different view of the wall of separation, associated with
Williams, founder of the Rhode Island colony. Unlike the
Jeffersonian wall that is meant to protect the state from the church,
the wall is meant to protect the church from the state Benevolent
neutrality recognizes that religion plays an important role in the
public life of the United States as shown by many traditional
government practices which, to strict neutrality, pose Establishment
Clause questions. Among these are the inscription of In God We
Trust on American currency; the recognition of America as one
nation under God in the official pledge of allegiance to the flag; the
Supreme Courts time-honored practice of opening oral argument
with the invocation God save the United States and this Honorable
Court; and the practice of Congress and every state legislature of
paying a chaplain, usually of a particular Protestant denomination,
to lead representatives in prayer. These practices clearly show the
preference for one theological viewpoint the existence of and
potential for intervention by a god over the contrary theological
viewpoint of atheism. Church and government agencies also
cooperate in the building of low-cost housing and in other forms of
poor relief, in the treatment of alcoholism and drug addiction, in
foreign aid and other government activities with strong moral
dimension.
Section 7. The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In
its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 12 of 25
national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the
right to self-determination.
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest,
adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its
territory.
The Constitution prescribes a policy of freedom from nuclear
weapons. The policy includes the prohibition not only of the
possession, control, and manufacture of nuclear weapons but also
nuclear arms tests. Exception to this policy may be made by the
political departments; but it must be justified by the demands of the
national interest. (consistent with the national interest.) But the
policy does not prohibit the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order
that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and
free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living,
and an improved quality of life for all.
Section 10. The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.
Different Concepts of Social Justice:
1. Calalang v Williams In Public Law
Social justice is "neither communism, nor
despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of
social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular
conception may at least be approximated. Salus
populi est suprema lex.
2. Almeda v CA In Agrarian Law
Social justice is "the greatest good to the greatest
number."
3. Ondoy v Ignacio In Labor Law
As between a laborer, usually poor and
unlettered, and the employer, who has resources
to secure able legal advice, the law has reason to
demand from the latter stricter compliance. Social
justice in these cases is not equality but
protection.
4. Salonga v Farrales In Obligations and Contracts
Social justice cannot be invoked to trample on the
rights of property owners who under our
Constitution and laws are also entitled to
protection.
Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.
Amparo libertad for the protection of personal freedom equivalent
to the habeas corpus writ;
Amparo contra leyes for the judicial review of the constitutionality
of statutes;
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
Amparo casacion for the judicial review of the constitutionality and
legality of a judicial decision;
Amparo administrativo for the judicial review of administrative
actions;
Amparo agrario for the protection of peasants rights derived from
the agrarian reform process.
Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social
institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life
of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and
duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the
development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution for protecting the
life of the unborn child was to prevent the legislature from
passing a law that would allow abortion. They did not intend to
ban all contraceptives for being unconstitutional; only those that kill
or destroy the fertilized ovum would be prohibited. Contraceptives
that actually prevent the union of the male sperm and the female
ovum, and those that similarly take action before fertilization should
be deemed non-abortive, and thus, constitutionally permissible
(Imbong vs Ochoa).
First, it is NOT an assertion that the unborn is a LEGAL person.
Second, this is not an assertion that the life of the unborn is placed
exactly on the level of the life of a mother. When necessary to save
the life of the mother, the life of the unborn may be sacrificed; but
not when the purpose is merely to save the other from emotional
suffering, for which other remedies must be sought, or to spare a
child from the life of poverty, which can be attended to by welfare
institutions.
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-
building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the
youth patriotism and nationalism, and encourage their involvement
in public and civic affairs.
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-
building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law
of women and men.
Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health
of the people and instill health consciousness among them.
Section 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the
rhythm and harmony of nature.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not [even] be
written in the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and
political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to exist from the
inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental
importance with intergenerational implications. Such right carries
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 13 of 25
with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment
(Oposa vs Factoran).
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it, the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment. It implies
the judicious management and conservation of the countrys
forests, else the ecological, environmental balance would be
irreversibly disrupted. It is what is known as the inter-generational
responsibility of the present generation to preserve the forests.
Section 17. The State shall give priority to education, science and
technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and
nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development.
Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic
force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
Section 19. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent
national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.
The constitutional policy of a self-reliant and independent national
economy does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign
investments, goods and services. It contemplates neither
economic seclusion nor mendicancy in the international
community. Economic self-reliance is a primary objective of a
developing country that is keenly aware of overdependence on
external assistance for even its most basic needs. It does not mean
autarky or economic seclusion; rather, it means avoiding
mendicancy in the international community. Independence refers to
the freedom from undue foreign control of the national economy,
especially in such strategic industries as in the development of
natural resources and public utilities (Tanada vs Angara).
Although the constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it
nevertheless reserves to the government the power to intervene
whenever necessary for the promotion of the general welfare.
The 1987 Constitution does not rule out the entry of foreign
investments, goods and services. While it does not encourage their
unlimited entry into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In
fact, it allows an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity,
frowning only on foreign competition that is unfair. The key, as in all
economies in the word, is to strike a balance between preventing
local businesses and allowing the entry of foreign investments and
services.
Section 20. The State recognizes the indispensable role of the
private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides
incentives to needed investments.
Laissez Faire: It means let alone. It means that the government
should leave the economic and social forces at work without any
interference on its part. It is the foundation of capitalism. This
provision has been rejected by the Constitution because of the
expanded provisions on social justice.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural
development and agrarian reform.
Section 22. The State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national
unity and development.
There should be national unity and development, not only in cities
and urban centers but also in the rural areas. The indigenous
cultural communities are, in fact, the paces that deserve attention
of the government, the same being the place where trivial Filipinos
lived since time immemorial. Their culture is a rich heritage. Their
ancestral land should be preserved.
Section 23. The State shall encourage non-governmental,
community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the
welfare of the nation.
Section 24. The State recognizes the vital role of communication
and information in nation-building.
Section 25. The State shall ensure the autonomy of local
governments.
Local autonomy means giving the local government units not only
more and greater powers, but also providing them with ampler
means and resources in order to enable them to meet their enlarged
responsibilities.
Municipal corporations are mere creatures of Congress, which has
the power to create and abolish municipal corporations, due to its
general legislative powers. Congress, therefore, has the power of
control over local governments. And if Congress can grant a
municipality the power to tax certain matters, it can also provide for
exemptions or even take back the power (Basco vs PAGCOR).
Autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means
decentralization, and does not make the local governments
sovereign within the State or an imperium in imperio.
There is decentralization of administration when the central
government delegates administrative powers to political
subdivisions in order to broaden the base of government power and
in the process to make local government more responsive and
accountable, and ensure their fullest development as self-reliant
communities and make them more effective partners in the pursuit
of national development and social progress. It relieves the
government of the burden of managing local affairs and enables it
to concentrate on national concerns. The President exercises
general supervision over them, but only to ensure that local affairs
are administered according to law. He has no control over their acts
in the sense that he can substitute their judgments with his own.
Decentralization of power, on the other hand, involves an
abdication of political power in the favor of local government units
declared to be autonomous. In that case, the autonomous
government is free to chart its own destiny and shape its future with
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 14 of 25
minimum intervention from central authorities (Limbona vs
Mangelin).
Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities
for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined
by law.
Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the
public service and take positive and effective measures against
graft and corruption.
Section 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.
While the manner of examining public records may be subject to
reasonable regulation by the government agency in custody
thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern, and
to afford access to public records cannot be discretionary on the
part of said agencies (Legaspi vs CSC).
Three basic principles emphasized by section 27 and 28
1. PUBLIC OFFICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST. Under this
principle, public officials in all ladders of our government
should always remember that they were merely entrusted
by the people to perform duties and responsibilities of their
offices for a fixed period of time. They were chosen to
serve the people, not to cheat them. Their offices are not
their own, nor can they be treated as private properties
which they can manage or dispose of at their whim and
caprice.
2. OURS IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF
MEN. The law should be applied equally without fear or
favor. No one in this Republic, not even the President, is
above the law.
3. TRANSPARENCY IN PUBLIC SERVICE. Because public
officials are mere trustees of the people, they should
observe loyalty and fidelity to the people who have
entrusted to them specific duties for a specific tenure. The
lessons that we have learned during the 21 years of martial
rule teach us that graft and corruption, abuse of power and
authority, and oppression of the rights of the people, can
cause chaos and revolution.
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
They are supposed to co-exist with the state. The moment the State
comes in to being, it is deemed invested with these three (3) powers
as its innate attributes. They are exercised primarily by the
legislature.
General Limitations of the Inherent Powers of the State
The exercise of these fundamental powers is subjec t at all times to
the limitations and requirements of the Constitution, and may in
proper cases be annulled by the courts of justice.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
POLICE POWER
It is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and
regulating the use of liberty and property. It is the most pervasive,
the least limitable, and the most demanding of the inherent powers.
It may be exercised aslong as the activity or the propert sought to
be regulated has some relevance to the public welfare. Salus
pupuli est suprema lex the will of the people is the supreme law.
Requisites for a Valid Exercise of Police Power
1. That the activity or property sought to be regulated affects
the public welfare. The interest of the public, generally, as
compared to a particular class requires interference by the
State. (Lawful Subject)
2. The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. Both the ends and the means
must be legitimate. (Lawful Means)
Basic Limitations on the Exercise of Police Power
1. Due Process Clause
2. Equal Protection Clause
The government may enact legislation that may interfere with
personal liberty, property, lawful businesses, and occupations
to promote the general welfare. However, the interference must
be reasonable and not arbitrary. To forestall arbitrariness, the
means used must have a reasonable relation to the end in view
(Gancayco vs City Government of Quezon City).
WHO MAY EXERCISE
The power is inherently vested in the Legislature. However, the
Congress may validly delegate this power to the President, to
administrative bodies, and to lawmaking bodies of local government
units. Once delegated, the agents can exercise only such
legislative powers, as are conferred on them by the national
lawmaking body (MMDA vs Bel-Air Village Association).
LGUs exercise the power under the general welfare clause
(Secs. 16, 391, 447, 458, and 468 of RA 7160): Section 16. General
Welfare. - Every local government unit shall exercise the powers
expressly granted, those necessarily implied therefrom, as well as
powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient and
effective governance, and those which are essential to the
promotion of the general welfare. xxx
Additional Limitations When Exercised by a Delegate
1. There must be an express grant by law.
2. Within territorial limits (for LGUs)
3. Must not be contrary to law; activity prohibited by law
cannot, in the guise of regulation, be allowed; an activity
allowed by law may be regulated, but not prohibited.
The Powers of Eminent Domain and Taxation may be used as
implements of Police Power, as cited in Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform and in
Lutz vs Araneta, respectively.
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 15 of 25
Police power cannot be bargained away through the medium
of contract or treaty. The non-impairment clause must yield to the
police power, whenever the contract deals with a subject affecting
the public welfare. The treaty is always subject to qualification or
amendment by a subsequent law; it can never curtail or restrict the
scope of police power.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
It is the power to forcibly take private property for public use, upon
payment of just compensation.
Also called the power of expropriation, eminent domain is described
as the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in
the government that may be acquired for some public
purpose through a method in the nature of a compulsory sale
to the state.
Two Stages of Eminent Domain Cases:
1. The determination of the authority of the plaintiff to
exercise the power of eminent domain and the propriety of
its exercise in the context of the facts involved in the suit;
2. The determination of the court of the just compensation for
the property sought to be taken.
Requisites for a Valid Exercise of the Power of Eminent
Domain
1. Necessity: There must be a necessity which must be of
public character.
When exercised by:
a. Congress The question of necessity is a political
questions, which the courts must inhibit from
resolving.
b. Delegate
i. Under specific delegation of authority - The
question of necessity is a political
questions, which the courts must inhibit
from resolving.
ii. Under general delegation of authority - The
question of necessity is a justiciable
question.
2. Private Property: Generally, all private property capable
of ownership may be expropriated. It may include public
utility (Republic vs PLDT) and even private property
devoted for public use (City of Manila vs Chinese
Community of Manila). The exceptions are money and
chooses of action.
3. Taking: It normally results in the actual taking or
appropriation of title to and possession of the expropriated
property, but may also be availed of to impose only a
burden upon the owner of the condemned property,
without loss of title and possession.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
Requisites of Taking:
a. Expropriator must enter a private property.
b. Entry must not be for a momentary period only.
c. Entry must be under a warrant or color of authority.
d. Property must be devoted for public use or otherwise
informally appropriated or injuriously affected.
e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as
to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial
enjoyment of the property (Republic vs Castellvi).
4. Public Use: The idea that public use is strictly limited to
clear cases of the use by the public has been discarded.
Public use has now acquired an expansive meaning to
include any use that is of usefulness, utility, or advantage,
or what is productive of general benefit of the public. As
long as the public has a right to use, whether
exercised by one or many members of public, a
public advantage or public benefit accrues
sufficient to constitute a public use (Manosca vs CA).
5. Just Compensation: It is the full and fair equivalent of the
property taken; the fair market value of the property (which
is the price that may be agreed upon by the parties, who
are willing but are not compelled to enter into a contract of
sale), plus consequential damage, minus consequential
benefits.
It embraces not only the correct determination of the
amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also
the payment for the land within a reasonable time from
the taking (Republic vs Lim).
General Rule: Reckoning point is determined as of the
date of the filing of the complaint for eminent domain.
This Court has ruled that when the taking of the property
sought to be expropriated coincides with the commence-
ment of the expropriation proceedings, or takes place
subsequent to the filing of the complaint for eminent
domain, the just compensation should be determined as of
the date of the filing of the complaint (Republic vs
Castellvi).
Exception: Where the filing of the complaint occurs
after the actual taking, just compensation is determined
as of the date of the taking.
Effect of Non-Payment
While the prevailing doctrine is that the non-payment of
just compensation does not entitle the private landowner
to recover possession of the expropriated lots, however,
in cases where the government failed to pay just
compensation within five (5) years from the finality of the
judgment in the expropriation proceedings, the owners
concerned shall have the right to recover possession of
their property (Republic vs Lim).
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 16 of 25
 6. Due Process: It requires that the property owner must be
given an opportunity to be heard in the determination o the
fair market value of the property.
Power of Eminent Domain Exercised by LGUs through a Valid
Delegation
The power of eminent domain as exercised by LGUS is not, strictly
speaking, a power of eminent domain, but merely a power of inferior
domain, which means that local government units can only exercise
such power which is delegated to it.
The following essential requisites must concur before an LGU
can exercise the power of eminent domain:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council
authorizing the local chief executive to exercise the power
of eminent domain;
2. It is exercised for the public use, purpose and welfare;
3. There must be payment of just compensation; and
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the
owner of the property south to be expropriated
(Municipality of Paranaque vs VM Realty).
POWER OF TAXATION
The power by which the sovereign, through its law-making body,
raises revenue to defray the necessary expenses of government.
Taxes are the enforced proportional contribuions from persons and
property, levied by the State by virtue of its sovereignty, for the
support of government and for all public needs.
It covers persons, property, or occupation to be taxed within the
taxing jurisdiction. It is inherent in the power to tax that a State be
free to select the subjects of taxation.
Justice Malcolm believed that the power to tax is an attribute of
sovereignty. It is the strongest of all the powers of government. This
led Chief Justice Marshall of the US Supreme Court, in the
celebrated case of McCulloch v. Maryland, to declare: The power
to tax involves the power to destroy. This might be construed to
mean that the power to tax includes the power to regulate even to
the extent of prohibition or destruction (Cooley) since the inherent
power to tax vested who to tax, what to tax and how much tax is to
be imposed.
However, instead of being regarded as a blanket authorization of
unrestrained use of the taxing power for any and all purposes, it is
more reasonable to say that the maxim the power to tax is the
power to destroy is to describe not the purposes for which the
taxing power may be used but the degree of vigor with which the
taxing power may be employed in order to raise revenue (Cooley)
The power to tax includes the power to destroy if it is used
validly as an implement of the police power in discouraging
and in effect, ultimately prohibiting certain things or
enterprises inimical to the public welfare. X x x But where the
power to tax is used soley for the purpose of raising revenues, the
modern view is that it cannot be allowed to confiscate or destroy. If
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
this is sought to be done, the tax may be successfully attacked as
an inordinate and unconstitutional exercise of the discretion that is
usually vested exclusively in the legislature in ascertaining the
amount of the tax. Justice Isagani Cruz
It is not the purpose of the government to throttle private business.
On the contrary, the government ought to encourage private
enterprise. Taxpayer, just like any concern organized for a lawful
economic activity, has a right to maintain a legitimate business. As
aptly held in Roxas, et al v. CA, et al.: The power of taxation is
sometimes called also the power to destroy. Therefore it should be
exercised with caution to minimize injury to the propriety rights of a
taxpayer. It must be exercised fairly, equally and uniformly, lest the
tax collector kill the hen that lays the golden egg.
WHO MAY EXERCISE
Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid delegation to any of
the following:
1. Law-making bodies of the LGUs (Art. X, Sec. 5 of the 1987
Constitution)
2. The President (Art. VI, Sec. 28, Par. 2) or as an incident of
emergency powers that Congress may grant to him (Art.
VI, Sec. 23, Par. 2)
LIFEBLOOD DOCTRINE: The lifeblood theory constitutes the
theory of taxation, which provides that the existence of government
is a necessity; that government cannot continue without means to
pay its expenses; and that for these means it has a right to compel
its citizens and property within its limits to contribute.
The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The
Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation. (Art.
VI, Sec. 28)
Difference of Equality and Uniformity
In other words, equality in taxation simply means that the tax shall
be strictly proportional to the relative value of the property (Cooley)
In contrast, uniformity in taxation means that persons or things
belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the same rate
(Dimaapao, Tax Principles and Remedies).
The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of regressive
taxes. What it simply provides is that Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation. The Constitutional provision should
be construed to mean simply that direct taxes are to be preferred
and indirect taxes, as much as possible, should be minimized. (E.
Fernando, Constitution of the Philippines) Indeed, the mandate to
Congress is not to prescribe, but to evolve a progressive tax system.
This is a mere directive upon Congress, not a justiciable right or a
legally enforceable one. We cannot avoid regressive taxes but only
minimize them (Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance).
Distinct Limitations on the Exercise of the Power of Taxation
1. Due process of law: Tax should not be confiscatory. With
the legislature primarily lies the discretion to determine the
nature, object, extent, coverage and situs of taxation. But
where a tax measure becomes so unconscionable and
unjust as to amount to confiscation of property, courts will
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 17 of 25
 not hesitate to strike it down, for despite all its plenitude,
the power to tax cannot override constitutional
prescriptions.
2. Equal protection clause: Taxes should be uniform and
equitable (Sec28. (1), Art. VI)
3. It must be for a PUBLIC PURPOSE: Generally, under the
express or implied provisions of the constitution, public
funds may be used only for public purpose. The right of the
legislature to appropriate funds is correlative with its right
to tax, and, under constitutional provisions against taxation
except for public purposes and prohibiting the collection of
a tax for one purpose and the devotion thereof to another
purpose, no appropriation of state funds can be made for
other than for a public purpose.
It is considered for public purpose if the
proceeds thereof are used for the support of the
government, or for some organized object of
government, or for the welfare of the community. A
public purpose in taxation implies a direct relation
between the primary object of an appropriation to the
public enjoyment. The essential point is that it affects
them as a community and not merely as individuals.
If the taxation was made for a special purpose
[Sec. 29(3), Art. VI] it must be treated as a special fund
and paid out for such purpose only; when purpose is
fulfilled, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the
general funds of the Government.
Double Taxation
It happens when additional taxes are laid on the same subject by
the same taxing jurisdiction during the same taxing period and for
the same purpose.
Despite the lack of a specific prohibition, however double taxation
will not be allowed if it results in a violation of the equal protection
clause. Hence, if certain properties are subjected to an additional
tax whereas others similarly situated are not similarly taxed, the
owners of the properties would have a right to complain.
There is no double taxation where one tax is imposed by the State
and other is imposed by the city; it being widely recognized that
there is nothing inherently obnoxious in the requirement that license
fees or taxes be enacted with respect to the same occupation,
calling or activity by both the state and the political subdivision
thereof (Punzalan v. Municipal Board of Manila).
Tax Exemptions
No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed, without the
concurrence of a majority of ALL the members of the Congress (Art.
VI, Sec. 25, par. 4).
Note: As distinguished from ordinary legislation, tax measures
require absolute majority of the entire composition of both Houses
of the Congress, voting separately. While ordinary law requires only
the majority of the members present, as long as quorum exists.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
Entities and Matters Exempt from Some Kind of Taxes by the
Constitution
1. ART. VI, SECTION 28. (3) Charitable institutions,
churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant
thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands,
buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
Note: The exemption extends to facilities, which
are incidental to and reasonably necessary for
the accomplishment of the main purposes.
Otherwise stated, the use of the school building
or lot for commercial purposes is neither
contemplated by law, no by jurisprudence.
2. ART. XIV, SECTION 4. (3) All revenues and assets of non-
stock, non-profit educational institutions used actually,
directly, and exclusively for educational purposes
shall be exempt from taxes and duties. Upon the
dissolution or cessation of the corporate existence of such
institutions, their assets shall be disposed of in the manner
provided by law.
Proprietary educational institutions, including
those cooperatively owned, may likewise be entitled to
such exemptions subject to the limitations provided by law
including restrictions on dividends and provisions for
reinvestment.
3. ART. XIV, SECTION 4. (4) Subject to conditions
prescribed by law, all grants, endowments, donations, or
contributions used actually, directly, and exclusively
for educational purposes shall be exempt from tax.
ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS
The bill or rights is the sanctuary of protection for all persons,
citizens, or non-citizens, against any and all kinds of abuses of
power and authority by the government, or any of its officials and
employees, or even against any unwarranted violation of such rights
by any other persons. It serves not only as a limitation but also a
deterrent to further violations of fundamental liberties. It is the
essence of constitutional democracy.
The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual
and the State. Its concern is not the relation between individuals or
between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of
Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private
sphere inaccessible to any power holder.
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the
equal protection of the laws.
DUE PROCESS
A law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon
inquiry and renders judgment only after trial [Darmouth College v.
Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518], Responsiveness to the supremacy
of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice [Ermita-Malate
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 18 of 25
Hotel & Motel Operators Association v. City of Manila, 20 SCRA
849].The embodiment of the sporting idea of fair play
[Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court, pp 32-33].
Rights Protected by the Due Process Clause
1. LIFE includes the right of an individual to his body in its
completeness, free from dismemberment, and extends to
the use of God-given faculties which make life enjoyable
[Justice Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law, pp.
320321]. See: Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200.
2. LIBERTY includes the right to exist and the right to be free
from arbitrary personal restraint or servitude, x xx (It)
includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his
faculties in all lawful ways x xx [Rubi v. Provincial Board
of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660],
3. PROPERTY is anything that can come under the right of
ownership and be the subject of contract. It represents
more than the things a person owns; it includes the right to
secure, use and dispose of them [Torraco v. Thompson,
263 U.S. 197].
Universal in application to all persons, without regard to any
difference in race, color or nationality. Artificial persons are
covered by the protection but only insofar as their property is
concerned [Smith Bell &Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil. 163]. The
guarantee extends to aliens and includes the means of livelihood
[Villegas v. Hiu Chiong, 86 SCRA 275].
Aspect of Due Process
1. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS: It serves as a restriction
on the governments rule-making power. It looks into and
requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with
the rights of the person to his life, liberty, or property.
Violation of substantive due process makes the law
unconstitutional.
Requisites:
a. There must be a valid law, upon which it is based;
b. The law must have been passed or approved to
accomplish a valid governmental objective;
c. The objective must be pursued in a lawful manner;
d. The law, as well as the means to accomplish the
objective, must be valid and not oppressive.
Note: Publication of laws is part of substantive
due process.
Void-for-Vagueness Rule
When a statute forbids or requires the doing of an act in
terms so vague that man of common intelligence must
necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its
application, that law is deemed void. Such kind of statute
violates the first essential requisite of due process of law
because it denies the accused the right to be informed of
the charged against him (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan).
Overbreadth Doctrine
A facial challenge of the statute when a governmental
purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms.
The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have
special application only to free speech cases. They are
inapt for testing the validity of penal statutes. For an "on-
its-face" invalidation of criminal statutes would result in a
mass acquittal of parties whose cases may not have even
reached the courts. Such invalidation would constitute a
departure from the usual requirement of "actual case and
controversy" and permit decisions to be made in a sterile
abstract context having no factual concreteness.
2. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS: It is a guarantee of
procedural fairness. It refers to the regular methods of
procedure to be observed before ones life, liberty, or
property can be taken away from him. Violation of
procedural due process makes the proceeding invalid.
The minimum requirements of due process are noticeand
hearing which, generally speaking, may not be dispensed
with because they are intended as a safeguard against
official arbitrariness (Ynot vs IAC).
Requisites for Procedural Due Process in Judicial
Proceedings
1. That the impartial court or tribunal trying the
case is properly clothed with judicial power
to hear and determine the matter before it;
2. That jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over
the person of the accused;
3. That the accused is given an opportunity to
be heard. To be heard does not mean verbal
arguments in court, as one may be heard
also through pleadings;
4. That judgment is rendered only upon lawful
hearing (Allonte vs Savellano).
Requisites for Procedural Due Process in
Administrative Proceedings
1. Right to hearing- it includes right to present
ones case and submit evidence to support
thereof;
2. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must
act on its own Independent consideration of
the law and facts of the controversy;
3. The tribunal must consider the evidence
Presented;
4. Evidence presented must be substantial,
which means relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion;
5. The Decision must have something to
support itself;
6. The Decision must be based on evidence
presented during hearing or at least
contained in the record and disclosed by the
parties; and
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 19 of 25
 7. The decision must be rendered in a manner
that the parties can know the various issues
involved and the reason for the decision
rendered (Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial
Relations).
Requisites for Procedural Due Process in Academic
Institution Proceedings
1. T he students must be informed in WRITING
of the nature and cause of any accusation
against them;
2. T hey shall have the right to answer the
charges against them with the assistance of
counsel, if desired:
3. T hey shall be informed of the evidence
against them;
4. T hey shall have the right to adduce evidence
in their own behalf; and
5. T he evidence must be duly considered by
the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to hear
and decide the case (ADMU vs Judge
Capulong).
Procedural Due Process in Extradition Proceedings:
Neither the treaty nor the extradition law precludes these
rights from a prospective extradite. An application of the
basic twin due process rights of notice and hearing will not
go against the treaty or the implementing law (Sec. of
Justice v. Lantion).
Procedural Due Process in Deportation Proceedings:
Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the
nature of a criminal action, considering that it is a harsh
and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the
freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of
such person to due process should not be denied. Thus,
the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines
particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to
deportation proceedings (Lao Gi Chia, Sr. v. CA).
EQUAL PROTECTION
All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both
as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Natural and
juridical persons are entitled to this guarantee; but with respect to
artificial persons, they enjoy the protection only insofar as their
property is concerned.
There is no difference between a law which actually denies equal
protection of the law and a law which permits of such denial. A law
may appear to be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet,
if it permits of unjust and illegal discrimination, it is within the
constitutional prohibitions (People vs Vera).
Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance,
yet, if applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye
and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal
discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition
of the constitution (Biraogo vs PTC).
Classification
It means the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in
certain particular and different from all others in these same
particulars.
Requisites for a Valid Classification
Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be
treated differently if there is a basis for valid classification. The
equal protection clause does not absolutely forbid
classification, so long as the following requisites are present:
1. Substantial distinctions which make for real differences.
2. Germane to the purpose of the law. The distinctions which
are the bases for the classification should have a
reasonable relation to the purpose of the law.
3. Not limited to existing conditions only.
4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class
(People vs Cayat).
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Art. III, Sec. 2 is not a prohibition of all searches and seizures, but
only UNREASONABLE searches and seizures.
There is no exact and fixed definition of the term unreasonable. All
illegal searches and seizures are unreasonable, while lawful one
are reasonable (Alvarez vs CFI).
The protection is available to all persons, including aliens, whether
accused of a crime or not. Artificial persons are also entitled to
the guarantee, although they may be required to open their books
of accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of police
and taxing powers. The right is personal; it may be invoked only
by the person entitled to it. As such, the right may be waived,
either expressly or impliedly, but the waiver must be made by the
person whose right is invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized
to effect such waiver (Stonehill v. Diokno).
The Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable
searches and seizures by private individuals. If the search is
made at the behest or initiation of the proprietor of a private
establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the case at
bar, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right
against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be invoked for
only the act of private individuals, not law enforcers, is involved. In
sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as
to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
government (People v. Marti).
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 20 of 25
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures is a Judicial Question
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure
in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable
from a consideration of the circumstances involved (Valmonte v. De
Villa).
A warrant of arrest is an order in writing issued in the name of the
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, to take a person, into custody, in order that he may be bound
to answer for the commission of an offense.
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the
People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal property described
therein and bring it before the court (Rule 126, Sec. 1).
WHO MAY ISSUE WARRANTS
General Rule: Only the judge has the power to issue a warrant after
the proper procedure has been duly taken.
For a search warrant: (Rule 126, Sec. 2) General Rule: It
should be filed with the court, whose territorial
jurisdiction a crime was committed. Exception: (1) For
compelling reasons, it can be filed with the court within
whose judicial region the crime was committed or
where the warrant shall be enforced. (2) But if the
criminal action has been filed, the application for a search
warrant can only be made in the court where the
criminal action is pending. (3) As per Administrative
Matter 99-20-09-SC, in cases of search warrants involving
heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions, as well as violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the
Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff Customs Code, as
amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be
enacted in Congress, and included herein by the Supreme
Court. The Executive Judges, and whenever they are on
official leave of absence or are not physically present in
the station, the Vice-Executive Judges, of the RTCs of
Manila and Quezon City shall have the authority to act on
applications filed by the NBI, PNP, and the Anti-Crime
Task Force. The applications shall be personally endorsed
by the Heads of the said agencies, for the search of places
to be particularly described therein, and the seizure of
property or things as prescribed in the Rules of Court, and
to issue the warrants, if justified, which may be served in
places outside the territorial jurisdiction of said
courts.
The warrant must direct that it be served in the
day time, unless the affidavit asserts that the property
is on the person or in the place ordered to be
searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that
it be served at any time of the day or night (Rule 126, Sec.
9).
A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days
from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. (Rule 126, Sec.
10)
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
For a warrant of arrest: It is always issued by the Court,
where the criminal action is pending, as it can only be
issued after the filing of an information, upon finding of
probable cause by the prosecutor. It can be enforced
anywhere in the Philippines.
An arrest may be made on any day and at any
time of the day or night. (Rule 113, Sec. 6)
Unlike a search warrant, no time limit is fixed
for the validity of a warrant of arrest. So long as the
warrant has not been recalled, or the person named
therein arrested, or had otherwise submitted himself to the
jurisdiction of the court, the warrant remains good and can
still be executed even if a previous negative return was
made to the issuing court.
Exception: The Commissioner of Immigration and Deportation may
issue warrants to carry out a final finding of a violation, either by an
executive or legislative officer or agency duly authorized for the
purpose (Morano vs Vivo).
REASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
General Rule: Searches and seizures to be lawful must be
accompanied by a valid warrant.
Exception: Valid warrantless arrests and warrantless searches and
seizures
Requisites of a Valid Warrant
1. Existence of probable cause, in connection with one
specific offense: It is concerned with probability and not
absolute certainty.
For a search warrant: such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.
For a warrant of arrest: such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
person to believe that an offense has been committed by
the person sought to be arrested.
2. Determination of probable cause was done personally
by the judge
For a search warrant: Sec. 5, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court provide that the judge must, before issuing the
warrant, PERSONALLY EXAMINE IN THE FORM OF
SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, in writing
and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce on facts personally known to them and attach
to the record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted (Silva vs Hon. Judge of RTC of Negros
Oriental). The examination must not be merely routinary or
pro forma, but must be probing and exhaustive.
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 21 of 25
 For a warrant of arrest: What the Constitution
underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of
the issuing judge to satisfy himself the existence of
probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest,
THE JUDGE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PERSONALLY
EXAMINE THE COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES.
Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall:
a. Personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest; or
b. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable
cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report
and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving
at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause (Soliven vs Makasiar).
3. After examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce
Oath: It is any form of attestation by which a party signifies
that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully
and truthfully; and it sometimes defines as an outward
pledge given by the person taking it that his attestation or
promise is made under an immediate sense of his
responsibility to his God. The true test of sufficiency of
an affidavit to warrant is whether it has been drawn in
such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon
and affiant be held liable for damages caused. (Alvarez
vs CFI)
4. The complainant or witnesses has personal
knowledge of the facts upon which the issuance of
warrant may be justified.
When the affidavit of the applicant or complainant contains
sufficient facts within his personal and direct knowledge, it
is sufficient if the judge is satisfied that there exists
probable cause; when the applicant's knowledge of the
facts is mere hearsay, the affidavit of one or more
witnesses having a personal knowledge of the facts is
necessary (Alvarez vs CFI).
5. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
General warrants are proscribed and unconstitutional. A
general warrant is not valid, as it infringes on the
constitutional mandate requiring particular description of
the things to be seized. A Scatter Shot Warrant is a kind
of general warrant which is issued for more than one
offense.
For a search warrant: A description of the place to be
searched is sufficient, if the officer with the warrant can,
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
intended.
A description of the object is sufficient, if the
object sought to be seized can be identified with sufficient
particularity, in relation to the averments of the offense. It
is not required that a technical nor a precise description is
given.
Under Rule 126, Sec. 3: A search warrant may
be issued for the search and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense; (b) Stolen or embezzled and
other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or (c) Used or
intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense.
According to Uy vs BIR, a search warrant may be
said to particularly describe the things to be seized:
a. When the description described therein is as
specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
allow;
b. When the description expresses conclusion
of fact, not of law, by which the warrant
officer may be guided in making the
searches and seizures; or
c. When the things described are limited to
those which bear direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued.
For a warrant of arrest: It is said to particularly describe
the person to be seized, if it contains the name/s of the
person/s to be arrested. If the name of the person to be
arrested is not known, then a John Doe warrant may be
issued. A John Doe" warrant will satisfy the constitutional
requirement of particularity of description, if there is some
description personae, which will enable the officer to
identify the accused.
Valid Warrantless Arrests
1. Rule 113, Sec. 5: Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense (in flagrante
delicto);
b. When an offense has just been committed, and
he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it
(hot pursuit); and
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who
has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another
A buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace
officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto.
It is essentially a form of entrapment, since the peace
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 22 of 25
 officer neither instigates nor induces the accused to
commit a crime. Entrapment is the employment of such
ways and means for the purpose of trapping or
capturing a lawbreaker from whose mind the criminal
intent originated. Oftentimes, it is the only effective way
of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of
the offense. The warrantless arrest must immediately
precede the entrapment.
Membership in organizations like NPA is a continuing
offense, thus, a person can be arrested anytime, as it is
deemed to be an instance of arrest in flagrante delicto
(Umil vs Ramos).
There must be a large measure of immediacy between
the time the offense is committed and the time of the
arrest, and if there was an appreciable lapse of time
between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a
warrant of arrest must be secured. Aside from the sense
of immediacy, it is also mandatory that the person making
the arrest has personal knowledge of certain facts
indicating that the person to be taken into custody has
committed the crime. Reliable information does not satisfy
as personal knowledge (People vs Del Rosario).
2. Rule 113, Sec. 13: Arrest after escape or rescue. If a
person lawfully arrested escapes or is rescued, any person
may immediately pursue or retake him without a warrant
at any time and in any place within the Philippines.
3. Rule 114, Sec. 23: Arrest of accused out on bail. For
the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen
may arrest him or, upon written authority endorsed on a
certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be arrested
by a police officer or any other person of suitable age and
discretion.
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested
without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart
from the Philippines without permission of the court where
the case is pending.
4. When the right is waived by the person arrested,
provided he knew of such right and knowingly decided not
to invoke it.
Valid Warrantless Searches and Seizures
1. When the right has been voluntarily waived (consent
searches)
Objections to the warrant of arrest must be made
before the accused enters his plea. Failure to do so
constitutes a waiver of his right against unlawful restraint
of liberty (People v. Codilla).
2. Rule 126, Sec. 13: Search incident to lawful arrest.
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant.
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
Note: A valid arrest must precede the search, the
process cannot be reversed. It may be made only within
the permissible area of search, or the place within the
immediate control of the person being arrested (Espano vs
CA).
3. Searches of moving vehicles
A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a
warrant, because the vehicle can be moved quickly out of
the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be
sought. Searches without warrant of automobiles are also
allowed for the purpose of preventing violations of
smuggling or immigration laws, provided that such
searches are made at borders or constructive borders,
like checkpoints near the boundary lines of the State (Papa
vs Mago).
4. Custom searches; however, rule is not available in
dwelling places.
The Tariff and Customs Code does not require
said warrant in the instant case. The Code authorizes
persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the
Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search
any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not
being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and
examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box
or envelope or any person on board, or stop and search
and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of
holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, without
mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. But
in the search of a dwelling house , the Code provides that
said "dwelling house may be entered and searched only
upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace
(People vs Mago).
5. Visual search at checkpoints
In Valmonte vs De Villa, the Court held that
between the inherent right of the state to protect its
existence and promote public welfare and an individual's
right against a warrantless search which is however
reasonably conducted, the former should prevail. True, the
manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of
abuse by the men in uniform, in the same manner that all
governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the
cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even
irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these
abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable limits,
are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a
peaceful community.
6. When there is a genuine reason to stop-and-frisk, in
light of the police officers experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant a belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed. A mere suspicion or a hunch will not
validate a stop-and-frisk (Malacat vs Court of Appeals).
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 23 of 25
 Its objective is either to determine the identity of
a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo
momentarily, while the police officer seeks to obtain more
information (Terry vs Ohio).
The two purposes of stop-and-frisk searches are:
(1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and
detection, and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and
self-preservation.
Stop-and-search is different from stop-and-frisk.
In stop-and-search, there is probable cause, while in stop-
and-frisk, there is genuine reason. In stop- and-frisk, the
commission of the offense need not be obvious to ordinary
man, but a seasoned police officer can determine the
possible offense.
In stop-and-search, search may be extend in the
place within the immediate control of the person, while in
stop-and-frisk it only extends to bodily searches or limited
protective search of outer clothing for weapons.
7. Conduct or aerial target zoning and saturation drives in
the exercise of military powers of the President.
8. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building regulations.
9. Plain View Doctrine: It states that objects within the sight
of an officer, who has a right to be in a position to have that
view are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence. The plain view doctrine is usually applied, when
a police officer is searching for the object subject of the
warrant, but nonetheless inadvertently comes upon an
incriminating object.
The 'plain view' doctrine may not be used to
extend a general exploratory search from one object to
another, until something incriminating at last emerges.
Requisites of Plain View Doctrine:
a. The executing law enforcement officer has a prior
justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise
properly in a position from which he can view a
particular order;
b. The officer must discover incriminating evidence
inadvertently;
c. The evidence must be immediately apparent to
the police that the items they observe may be
evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise
subject to seizure; and
d. Plain view justified the seizure of evidence
without further search.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Art. III, Sec. 3, par 2: It states that all evidence obtained in violation
of Sec. 2, Art. III, shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Fruit of Poisonous Tree
Once the primary source (the tree) is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the
POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018
fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the
principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be
used to gain other evidence, because the originally illegally
obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.
Exclusionary Rule applies to principal evidence. Fruit of
Poisonous Tree Doctrine applies to secondary evidence.
The illegally seized object must be returned, if it is not a prohibited
object. If it is a contraband, it can be confiscated.
A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding
party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any
and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime (People vs
Del Rosario).
SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The right to privacy has been concisely defined as the right to be
left alone. It has also been defined as the right of a person to be
free from unwarranted publicity, and the right to live without
interference by the public, in matters with which the public is not
necessarily concerned.
Requisites of Existence of Right to Privacy
1. Subjective Test: A person has exhibited an actual
expectation of privacy.
2. Objective Test: The expectation is one that society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable.
The factual circumstances of the case determine the
reasonableness of the expectation. However, other factors, such
as customs, physical surroundings and practices of a
particular activity, may serve to create or diminish this
expectation (Ople vs Torres).
Zones of Privacy
1. Art. III, Sec. 1 Due Process Clause
2. Art. III, Sec. 2 Right against unreasonable searches and
seizure
3. Art. III, Sec. 3 Privacy of communication and
Correspondence
4. Art. III, Sec. 8 Right to Form Association
5. Art. III, Sec. 6 Liberty of Abode and travel
6. Art. III, Sec. 17 Right Against Self Incrimination
7. The Civil Code provides that "[e]very person shall respect
the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons" and punishes as actionable
torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into
the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or
employee or any private individual liable for damages for
any violation of the rights and liberties of another person,
and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private
communications.
Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 24 of 25
 8. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of
secrets by an officer, the revelation of trade and industrial
secrets, and trespass to dwelling.
9. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the
Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act
and the Intellectual Property Code.
10. The Rules of Court on privileged communication likewise
recognize the privacy of certain information (Ople vs
Torres).
Inclusions of Right of Privacy
1. Decisional Privacy right to independence in making
certain important decisions.
2. Informational Privacy right in avoiding of disclosure of
personal matters
a. The right not to have private information
disclosed.
b. The right to live freely without surveillance and
intrusion (Disini vs Sec. of Justice).
principle that "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of
the accused."
The law prohibits the overhearing, intercepting, or recording of
private communication, but not those which are public in character
(Navarro vs CA).
A person, who places a photograph on the Internet precisely intends
to forsake and renounce all privacy rights to such imagery,
particularly under circumstances where the said person did not
employ protective measures or devices that would have controlled
access to the Web page or the photograph itself. Without proof that
they placed the photographs subject of this case within the ambit of
their protected zone of privacy, they cannot now insist that they
have an expectation of privacy with respect to the photographs in
question (Vivares vs St. Theresas College).

Intrusion, When Allowed

1. By lawful order of the court; or
2. When public safety or order requires otherwise, as may be
provided by law.

The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of
them breaking the cabinets and drawers of the other and in
ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A
person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his or her
integrity or right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her
(Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals.)

Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200), Sec. 1: It shall be unlawful for

any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using
any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a Dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone
or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described.

The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be

penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different
from those involved in the private communication. The statute's
intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording
is underscored by the use of the qualifier "any". Consequently,
"even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private
conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will)
qualify as a violator" under this provision of R.A. 4200 (Ramirez vs
CA).

In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, a case which dealt with

the issue of telephone wiretapping, we held that the use of a
telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private
conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200
because a telephone extension devise was neither among those
"device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated therein , following the

POLITICAL LAW LAST MINUTE REVIEWER (Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel) || AY 2017-2018 Mabanglo, Vicson A. || 4S || Page 25 of 25