Atty Guillen Topics

Reappointments in Cons. Com.

 Same Position
 Must only be ad interim appointments
 Reappointment must not exceed 7 years

Ad Interim vs Regular
Ad Interim - Power of the President to make appointments during the recess of Congress, but such
appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the
next adjournment of the Congress

Regular – one made by the President while Congress is in session, which takes effect only after
confirmation by the Commission on Appointment and, once approved, continues until the end of the
term of the appointee.

Sectoral Representative
Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and underrepresented” or lacking in “well-
defined political constituencies.” It is enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special
interests and concerns of their sector.
NOTE: Those “marginalized and underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas workers. (LUV-OF-HIP)
Those lacking in “well-defined political constituencies” include professionals, the elderly, women, and
the youth. (PEWY)

JBC Appointments
 Need not to be confirmed
 Applies only to the Chief Justice, Secretary of Justice and the Rep. of Congress

Promotional Appointment
 Allowed provided that the total years in office do not exceed 7 years.
 Allowed only in the case of death, permanent incapacity, resignation or removal of the
predecessor

Qualification of Commissioners
 Not a candidate in a preceding election

Double Jeopardy
XPN:
 Demurrer of Evidence w/ consent of the accused
 Violation of the right to speedy trial
>Crimes Covered

Variance Rule
  Crimes Necessarily Included
 Crimes Necessarily Includes

Continuous Trial Rule

 Not included sa coverage sng compre

Due Process
Pp vs Marciales – convicted of homicide instead of the murder charge

Punishable by Ordinance (Sec. 21, Art.3)

 Refers to the same act

Provisional Dismissal
 Always with the consent of the accused.

Plea Bargaining
 If no Signature of the Accused

Doctrine of Supervening Event

Election Laws
 Rule on Succession
 Abundo Case (Jan. 8, 2013)

Petition to Deny Due Course (Rule 78 of Omnibus Election Code)

 Material Misrepresentation
 Certificate of Candidacy is Null and Void
 No Substitution
 2nd Highest Vote Wins

Petition for Disqualification (Rule 68 of Omnibus Election Code)

 Violation of Election Laws
 Substitution
 If before expiration to file certificate  within political party
 If period to file certificate has expired  same family name must substitute

Note:
 COMELEC has jurisdiction on both petition

Electoral Tribunal
 Congress
 Has validly proclaimed, taken oath, assume office
Palparan Case

HRET
 All members of the house, party list or regular

Atong Paglaum Case (Party List)

 2% ceiling rule is not relevant
 2%  guarantees 1 seat in 1st Round
 2nd Round  Partylist is Ranked from Highest
 Does not exceed 3 seats
 No Need to represent marginalized sector
 Political Party needs Sectoral Wing

Search Warrant vs Warrant of Arrest

Search Warrant Warrant of Arrest
Probable Cause Determination of the Judge by asking Personal determination of records
searching question and answer (complete records of the case)
Personal knowledge

Ombudsman (Jurisdiction)
 GOCC w/ original charter

Esmael Khan vs Ombudsman

Regardless the act is illegal or not
Even Inefficient
Administrative and Criminal
Admin  substantial evidence
 Penalty  not more than 1 month suspension or 30 days salary  final and unappealable
 Remedy  certiorari - Rule 65
 Penalty  more than 1 month suspension or 30 days salary  final but appealable
 If in relation to personnel movement  CSC
 Remedy  appeal - Rule 43 or MR
Criminal  limited to finding of probable cause
If there is PC  Recommend to Sandiganbayan or MTC or RTC (based on Salary Grade)

Morales vs Binay
 Abolished Doctrine of Condonation
 CA can stop execution of judgment of Ombudsman
 Issue TRO or Injunction
Preventive Suspension
 Total Exoneration  Entitled to back salary

Garcia vs Molina
 Preventive Suspension pending investigation  No back wages

PIL
 Combatant vs Non-Combatant
 Militia or Volunteer = as Prisoners of War (Req.)
1. they form part of such armed forces of the State
2. they fulfill the following conditions:
a. under the command of a leader
b. has insignia
c. openly take arms
d. engage in accordance with the rules of war

Limitation before engaging an Attack

a. Military Necessity
b. Doctrine of Proportionality

GR: Civilians cannot be targeted

XPN: Directly participating in hostilities

China vs Philippines
 9 Dash Line has no historical basis because it is not compatible with the EEZ
 Spratly Islands cannot generate extended maritime zones
 China’s action is unlawful because it violated Phil. sovereign rights over its EEZ
 China’s land reclamation and construction of artificial island caused harm to marine
environment
 China aggravated the dispute because it inflicted irreparable harm

ICJ – Int’l Court of Justice

  To acquire Jurisdiction  both parties must agree

Arbitral Tribunal (PCA or ITLOS)

 To acquire Jurisdiction  at least one agrees

Citizenship
 Natural Born
 Naturalized

Naturalization
 Judicial  Any person who wants to be naturalized.
 Administrative  not available to an alien who was not born and raised in the Philippines. He
must avail of judicial naturalization.

Repatriation
 Applies to natural born by taking oath of allegiance
 2 Grounds
a. Political Persecution
b. Economic Reason
 His/Her children cannot avail, only the one who goes abroad

Alien Acquiring Land

GR: Aliens cannot acquire private lands
XPN:
a. Heredity (Intestate) Succession  allowed
b. Natural born who lost citizenship as transferee subject to limitation
 5 Hectares  Rural lands
 3 Hectares  Urban lands

Directors of Lands vs IAC

 Public agricultural land can alienable after 30 years of actual adverse possession (concept of the
owner)

Doctrine of Command Responsibility – responsibility of the commanders for crimes committed by

subordinate members of the armed force or other persons subject to their control in international wars
or domestic conflicts
 Can be charged after term of office
 Actual knowledge is not indispensable, only the fact that you ought to know
 Presumption of Knowledge
 -if act is committed by immediate staff
 -if act is done repeatedly w/in its jurisdiction
3 Term Limit
 Preventive Suspension  No interruption
 Exoneration/Recall (Hagidorn Case)  Interruption

Freedom of Expression
 Cross Dresser vs School Regulation  Right prevails

Valid Warrantless Arrest

1. In Flagrante Delicto
2. Hot Pursuit
3. Escaped Prisoner
4. Jump Bail

Valid Warrantless Search

1. Plain View
2. Stop and Frisk
3. Wavier
4. Search incidental to arrest
5. Moving Vehicle at check points
6. Custom Search
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances
8. Search of passengers made in airport

Bill of Right
 Not applicable to private

Right to Privacy
 Husband & Wife  applicable if the office is exclusive to 1 party. If the government is a party to
the case and the evidence was gathered by a private person, right to unlawful searches and
seizure does not apply.
 If common  not applicable

Nuisance per se
 No need of notice and hearing

Right to Abode
XPN: Lawful Order

Right to Travel
XPN: Interest of National Security, Public Safety, Public Health

Eminent Domain
 Congress  public purpose = political question
 LGU  public purpose = judicial question
o prior offer to buy and refusal to sell
o 15% deposit to acquire possession

Taking (Castelvi Case)

Requisites
(1) the expropriator must enter a private property;

(2) the entry must be for more than a momentary period.

(3) the entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority;

(4) the property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected;

(5) the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.

GR: State cannot be sued without its consent

XPN: GOCC with original charter
XPN to XPN: LGU
Mandamus  applies if there is budget (appropriation) + justification

COA
 Money claim against Govt  file petition before COA
 COA decides within 30 days
o if no decision  WAIT for the decision

When UN can intervene in Local Affairs  breach of Int’l Peace and Security

Refugee
Requisites:
1. Those who are outside the country of his nationality or if stateless, outside the country of his habitual
residence; lack national protection
2. Lacks national protection
3. Has a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular group or political opinion

Non-Refoulment – prohibit a state to return or expel a refugee to the territory where he escaped
because his life or freedom, is threatened. The state is under obligation to grant temporary asylum

Internally Displaced Person

Refugees are people who have fled their countries while internally displaced persons are those who
have not left their country’s territory. The latter are pers0ns who have been forced to flee their homes
suddenly in large numbers as a result of armed conflict, internal strife r natural or man-made disaster
and who are within the territory of their country.

Art 6. Sec. 21 (In Aid of Legislation)

GR: Anyone can be questioned
XPN: Executive Privilege

Art 6. Sec. 22
Heads of Dept 

Question Hour
Heads of Dept.  no need consent from Pres.

Gudani vs Senga
 May the President prevent a member of the armed forces from testifying before a legislative
inquiry? We hold that the President has constitutional authority to do so, by virtue of her
power as commander-in-chief, and that as a consequence a military officer who defies such
injunction is liable under military justice. At the same time, we also hold that any chamber of
Congress which seeks the appearance before it of a military officer against the consent of the
President has adequate remedies under law to compel such attendance. Any military official
whom Congress summons to testify before it may be compelled to do so by the President. If
the President is not so inclined, the President may be commanded by judicial order to compel
the attendance of the military officer. Final judicial orders have the force of the law of the
land which the President has the duty to faithfully execute.

Judicial Review
Elements:
a. Actual Case or Controversy
b. Proper Party
c. Filed at earliest possible time
d. Lis mota – constitutionality is the main issue
Facial Challenge
Can be invoke only in freedom of expression

Overbreadth Doctrine
 A person generally can argue that a statute is unconstitutional as it is applied to him or her;
the individual cannot argue that a statute is unconstitutional as it is applied to third parties
not before the court. For example, a defendant in a criminal trial can challenge the
constitutionality of the law that is the basis for the prosecution solely on the claim that the
statute unconstitutionally abridges his or her constitutional rights. The overbreadth doctrine
is an exception to the prohibition against third-party standing. It permits a person to challenge
a statute on the ground that it violates the First Amendment (free speech) rights of third
parties not before the court, even though the law is constitutional as applied to that
defendant. In other words, the overbreadth doctrine provides that: Given a case or
controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a
statute by showing that it substantially abridges the First Amendment rights of other parties
not before the court.

Void for Vagueness

 The void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that “a law is facially invalid if men of common
intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application”.

Transcendental Importance
Oposa vs Factoran
XPN to Moot and Academic:
1. Capable of repetitive application
2. Transcendental Importance
3. Gross violation of Constitution
4. Guidelines for bench and bar
5. Paramount public interest

Limitation of General Appropriations Act (GAA)

1. Congress may not increase appropriations recommended by the President for the operations of the
government
2. Form, content and manner of preparation of budget shall be provided by law
3. No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the bill unless it releases specifically to some
particular appropriations therein
4. Procedure for approving appropriations for Congress shall be the same as that of other departments
in order to prevent sub-rosa appropriations by Congress;
5. Prohibition against transfer of appropriations. Nonetheless, the following may, by law, be authorized
to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations (Doctrine of Augmentation):
a. President
b. Senate President
c. Speaker of the HoR
d. Chief Justice
e. Heads of Constitutional Commissions;
6. Prohibitions against appropriations for sectarian benefit; and
7. Automatic re-appropriation – If, by the end of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have failed to pass
the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriations law for the
preceding fiscal year shall be deemed reenacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general
appropriations bill is passed by the Congress (Art. VI, Sec. 25[7]).
Ratio: For the purpose of preventing the disruption in government operations and unauthorized
disbursement of funds

PDAF is unconstitutional because:

1. violation of separation of power
2. violation of non-delegability of legislative power
3. Deprives the Pres. item veto
4. Impairs check and balance
5. Dilute Congressional oversight, impairing public accountability
6. Impairing genuine local autonomy

Impeachment
Limitation  1 year
If 1st complaint is referred and acted upon  2nd complaint is barred
XPN:
If dismiss in COJ  bypass by 1/3 vote of Congress

Habeas Corpus
Ground for Suspension: rebellion or invasion
Steps:
1. Pres. reports to congress within 48 hours
2. Congress (both house)will convene within 24 hours

When Warrantless Arrest can’t be Question

Within 72 hours  rebellion or invasion

Art 125  arrest is illegal and warrantless (not rebellion or invasion)

State of Emergency
 Discretionary of the Pres.

Emergency Power
 Needs delegation of Congress

Inquest (P.I. – warrantless arrest)

When Matter of Right  penalty more than 4 yrs 2mos. 1 day
 Waiver of 125  within 5 days
When Discretionary  penalty less than 4 yrs 2mos. 1 day

Bail
When Matter of Right
 MTC  before/after conviction
 RTC  before conviction, not punishable rec. perp. or life imprisonment
When Discretionary  after conviction, not punishable rec. perp. or life imprisonment
 Summary hearing is mandatory

Recognizance
Applies to minor
Needs resolution of Municipal/City Council if adult

Extradition
Avail Bail  rights of the accused (discretionary)

Specialty vs Double Criminality

Specialty  crimes is provided in treaty
Double  crimes punishable to both receiving and requesting state

Treatment of Alien

Doctrine of State Responsibility

Invoke when crime committed is internationally wrongful act
Req.
1. Failed to prevent it
2. Negligence
3. After the event, no response or did nothing

If the insurgent succeed in taking over the Govt., can they be liable invoking State Responsibility for
damages?

Incompatible vs Forbidden Office

Incompatible  cannot sit without forfeiting your current position
Forbidden  cannot sit even if you are willing to forfeit your seat/current position

Signatory State vs State Party

Signatory State  signed but not ratified
 Becomes State Party by Accession
State Party  signed and ratified

Innocent Passage vs Transit Passage

 Innocent Passage 
o Applies to Territorial Sea
o Can be Suspended
o Submarine must show flag
 Transit Passage 
o Applies to EEZ
o Applies to vessels and Aircraft
o Cannot be Suspended
o XPN: security reasons and must have publication

Treaty vs Executive Agreement

 Treaty  valid, needs ratification for its effectivity
 Executive Agreement  no need ratification

Sagisag vs Exec. Sec.

 Constitutionality of EDCA. EDCA is not a treaty but an executive agreement.

Variance Doctrine – right to be informed of the crime imputed against the accused

Doctrine of Supervening Event

Creation of Cities

Pelaez Case
 Only the seat of government may be changed by the President when public welfare so
requires and NOT the creation of municipality.

League of Cities vs COMELEC

Cityhood Laws do not violate Art. 10 Sec. 10 of the Constitution
The P100M average annual income requirement for the creation of component cities was arbitrarily
made
Congress only sought the well-being of the respondent municipalities, to enjoy genuine and meaningful
local autonomy
Should not be restricted by technical rules of procedure at the expense of the transcendental interest of
justice and equity

Req. of De Facto Corp.

1. Valid law authorizing incorporation
2. Attempted in Good Faith
3. Colorable compliance with law
4. Assumption of Corporate Powers

NGO is under COA  if NGO is funded by the Gov’t

GOCC is under COA  with original charter, subject to pre-audit
w/o original charter, subject to post-audit

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedy

Primary or Prior Resort

Atty Guillen Topics in Exam

Expropriation of LGU
Public Use for Worship park
-violation of non-establishment clause
-additional requisite, offer and refusal

LGU Eminent Domain

Public Use/Issue of necessity is not a political question  defense by owner

Equal Protection Clause

Valid Warrantless Search

-Search of Moving Vehicles

IBP vs Atienza
Clear and Present Danger Rule (Art. 3 Sec. 4)
Issuance of permit by mayor
 Atienza granted a permit to rally in a venue other than the one applied for by the IBP.
 The Court ruled that Atienza committed grave abuse of discretion.
 It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present
danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an
imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter.
 Notably, respondent failed to indicate in his Comment any basis or explanation for his action.
It smacks of whim and caprice for respondent to just impose a change of venue for an
assembly that was slated for a specific public place. It is thus reversible error for the appellate
court not to have found such grave abuse of discretion and, under specific statutory provision,
not to have modified the permit "in terms satisfactory to the applicant."

Austria vs NLRC
Dismissal of employee based on law is valid, not on purely ecclesiastical affair (Art. 3 Sec. 5)
 Examples of so-called ecclesiastical affairs to which the State cannot meddle are proceedings
for excommunication, ordinations of religious ministers, and administration of sacraments.
While the matter at hand relates to the church and its religious minister, it does not give the
case a religious significance. What is involved is the relationship of the church as an employer
and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relation whatsoever with the
practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church. Pastor Austria was not excommunicated
 or expelled from the membership of the SDA but was terminated from employment. As
pointed out by the OSG in its memorandum, the grounds invoked for Austria’s dismissal are all
based on Article 282 of the Labor Code which enumerates the just causes for termination of
employment. It is palpable by this alone that the reason for Austria’s dismissal from the
service is not religious in nature.

Custodial Investigation
Spontaneous Statement is admissible

Mandatory, random and suspicionless drug testing of students  Constitutional

No violation of due process of equal protection
Person’s charged at Prosecutors Office  Unconstitutional (self-incrimination)

Right to Privacy of Communication (Art. 3 Sec. 3)

Communication which are not private in nature are not covered by privacy

Illegal warrantless arrest

Right of the Accused (Art. 3 Sec. 12)

PAO Lawyer  Not Independent counsel
NBI Lawyer  Not Independent counsel
How to determine Probable Cause in Warrant of Arrest
 Examine complete records of the case

Confession During Investigation

Representation of Family, principal, Priest
Counsel is absent
Waiver is sign by him in the presence of independent counsel
Confession During Investigation

LGU Emergency Power

Period of Effectivity must be declared
Needs Publication

Marquez vs Desierto
Inspection of Account by the Ombudsman
Req.
1. Pending case where the account is involved
2. Account is specifically mentioned
3. Date & Time of Inspection
4. Branch Manager and Account Holder must be present in the inspection
5. Inspection is limited to the account

Limitation to Right to Travel

a. Public Health
b. Public Safety
c. Public Security

LGU - Procedure of expropriation

Req.
1. There must be previous offer by the municipality
2. Refusal of Offer
Expropriation of land for worship park  violation of non-establishment clause
Exercise of Eminent Domain by a delegate (LGC)  issue of necessity is a valid ground

Equal Protection
Appropriate Funds for the probation law by a municipality or province, while others do not  Violation
of Equal Protection

Search of Moving Vehicles

Limited to Visual Search, unless with probable cause
Traffic Violation not considered an valid warrantless arrest
Journal vs Enrolled Bill  enrolled bill prevails
XPN:

Anti-Graft
Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction
Malaya vs Sandiganbayan

Art 2. Section 28
Voting Slips

Incompatible Office
JBC – ex offcio

Creation of Cities
Creation of Legislative District
Congress only has the power
Municipal of North Cotobato vs GRP
 The MOA-AD is inconsistent with the Constitution and laws.
 The MOA-AD uses the word associative with regard to its relationship with the state.
 What is an association in international law?
o [A]n association is formed when two STATES of unequal power voluntarily establish
durable links. In the basic model, one state, the associate, delegates certain
responsibilities to the other, the principal, while maintaining its international status as
a state. Free associations represent a middle ground between integration and
independence.
 These provisions of the MOA indicate, among other things, that the Parties aimed to vest in
the BJE the status of an associated state or, at any rate, a status closely approximating it.
 The concept of association is not recognized under the present Constitution
 No province, city, or municipality, not even the ARMM, is recognized under our laws as having
an associative relationship with the national government. Indeed, the concept implies powers
that go beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution to any local or regional government.
It also implies the recognition of the associated entity as a state.
 Article II, Section 22 of the Constitution must also be amended if the scheme envisioned in the
MOA-AD is to be effected. That constitutional provision states: The State recognizes and
promotes the rights of indigenous cultural communities within the framework of national
unity and development. (Underscoring supplied) An associative arrangement does not uphold
national unity. While there may be a semblance of unity because of the associative ties
between the BJE and the national government, the act of placing a portion of Philippine
territory in a status which, in international practice, has generally been a preparation for
independence, is certainly not conducive to national unity.

SEMA vs COMELEC
 Whether the delegation to the ARMM Regional Assembly of the power to create provinces,
cities, municipalities and barangays conflicts with any provision of the Constitution.

 There is no provision in the Constitution that conflicts with the delegation to regional
legislative bodies of the power to create municipalities and barangays, provided Section 10,
Article X of the Constitution is followed. However, the creation of provinces and cities is
another matter. Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution provides, Each city with a
population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one
representative in the House of Representatives. Similarly, Section 3 of the Ordinance
appended to the Constitution provides, Any province that may hereafter be created, or any
city whose population may hereafter increase to more than two hundred fifty thousand shall
be entitled in the immediately following election to at least one Member x x x.

 Clearly, a province cannot be created without a legislative district because it will violate
Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution as well as Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to
the Constitution. For the same reason, a city with a population of 250,000 or more cannot also
be created without a legislative district. Thus, the power to create a province, or a city with a
population of 250,000 or more, requires also the power to create a legislative district. Even
the creation of a city with a population of less than 250,000 involves the power to create a
legislative district because once the citys population reaches 250,000, the city automatically
becomes entitled to one representative under Section 5 (3), Article VI of the Constitution and
 Section 3 of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution. Thus, the power to create a province
or city inherently involves the power to create a legislative district.

 The threshold issue then is, can Congress validly delegate to the ARMM Regional Assembly the
power to create legislative districts for the House of Representatives? The answer is in the
negative.

 Under the present Constitution, as well as in past Constitutions, the power to increase the
allowable membership in the House of Representatives, and to reapportion legislative
districts, is vested exclusively in Congress under Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution.

 Congress exercises these powers through a law that Congress itself enacts, and not through a
law that regional or local legislative bodies enact. The allowable membership of the House of
Representatives can be increased, and new legislative districts of Congress can be created,
only through a national law passed by Congress.

HRET Jurisdiction
Req.
1. Proclaimed
2. Took his oath
3. Assume Office

Palparan vs HRET
 Facts:
o Palparan countered that the HRET had no jurisdiction over his person since it was
actually the party-list Bantay, not he, that was elected to and assumed membership in
the House of Representatives. Palparan claimed that he was just Bantays nominee.
Consequently, any question involving his eligibility as first nominee was an internal
concern of Bantay. Such question must be brought, he said, before that party-list
group, not before the HRET.
 Issue:
o Whether or not respondent HRET has jurisdiction over the question of qualifications of
petitioners Abayon and Palparan as nominees of Aangat Tayo and Bantay party-list
organizations, respectively, who took the seats at the House of Representatives that
such organizations won in the 2007 elections.
 Ruling:
o Although it is the party-list organization that is voted for in the elections, it is not the
organization that sits as and becomes a member of the House of Representatives. (
Section 5, Article VI of the Constitution)
o Once elected, both the district representatives and the party-list representatives are
treated in like manner. They have the same deliberative rights, salaries, and
emoluments. They can participate in the making of laws that will directly benefit their
legislative districts or sectors. They are also subject to the same term limitation of
three years for a maximum of three consecutive terms.
o In the cases before the Court, those who challenged the qualifications of petitioners
Abayon and Palparan claim that the two do not belong to the marginalized and
underrepresented sectors that they ought to represent. The Party-List System Act
 provides that a nominee must be a bona fide member of the party or organization
which he seeks to represent.
o What is inevitable is that Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution provides that the
HRET shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to, among other things, the
qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives. Since, as pointed out
above, party-list nominees are ELECTED MEMBERS of the House of Representatives no
less than the district representatives are, the HRET has jurisdiction to hear and pass
upon their qualifications. By analogy with the cases of district representatives, once
the party or organization of the party-list nominee has been proclaimed and the
nominee has taken his oath and assumed office as member of the House of
Representatives, the COMELECs jurisdiction over election contests relating to his
qualifications ends and the HRETs own jurisdiction begins.
o The Court holds that respondent HRET did not gravely abuse its discretion when it
dismissed the petitions for quo warranto against Aangat Tayo party-list and Bantay
party-list but upheld its jurisdiction over the question of the qualifications of
petitioners Abayon and Palparan.

Art. 6 Sec. 14
Personal Appearance of Representative
Junior Associate who appear
Not the Representative
Does not prohibit practice and Profession

Parliamentary Immunity
Pobre vs Santiago

Declaration of State of Emergency of the Pres.

Emergency Power  Congress

Partial Veto
Veto Powers
Riders

2% Ceiling of Party list

BANAT Case

Atong Paglaum Case

Who can participate
1. Political party– Organized group of citizens advocating ideology or platform, principles and
policies for the general conduct of government and which, as the most immediate means of
securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports certain of its leaders and members
as candidate in public office (Ang Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC and Bayan Muna v. COMELEC,
G.R. Nos. 147589 and 147613, June 26, 2001, June 26, 2001).
 2. National party – Its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority
of regions.
3. Regional party – Its constituency is spread over the geographical territory of at least a majority
of the cities and provinces comprising the region.
4. Sectoral party – Organized group of citizens belonging to any of the following sectors: labor,
peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous, cultural communities, elderly, handicapped,
women, youth, veterans, overseas workers and professionals, whose principal advocacy
pertains to the special interest and concerns of their sectors.
5. Sectoral Organization – Refers to a group of citizens who share similar physical attributes or
characteristics, employment, interest or concerns.
6. Coalition – Refers to an aggregation of duly registered national, regional, sectoral parties or
organizations for political and/or election purposes.

Art. 16 Sec. 3
GOCC – Sue-Sue

Joint Congressional Oversight Committee

Violation of Separation of Power
Jurisdiction of Executive
Abakada vs BIR

Art. 6 Sec. 2
Immunity from arrest of Members of Congress  punishable by 6 yrs below even during recess

Discipline of Members of Congress

2/3 Vote of Congress

Jurisdiction of SC
Grave abuse of Discretion
Violation of 2/3 Votes

Double jeopardy
1. Valid Complaint or Information
2. Filed in a court of competent jurisdiction
3. To which the accused had pleaded or was validly arraigned
4. And that the accused was convicted or acquitted or the case against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.

Self-Incrimination
 Personally invoke
 Right not to take the witness stand
Presumption of Innocence

Custom Searches

Naturalization Cancellation
 Effect to Family  no effect

Right to Self-Incrimination
 Hair Strands  purely mechanical

Validity of Warrantless Arrest

Admissibility of Evidence
 Warrantless Search
 Outside Immediate Control
 No Waiver
 inadmissible

Double Jeopardy
 w/o the express consent of the accused  DJ is attached

Arraigned by Homicide, Convicted by Murder

 Violation of right to be informed
 Variance Doctrine

Taking Witness Stand

 Only the accused can refuse

Cross Examination

Right to Appeal
 Statutory Right

Bail as a Matter of Right vs Matter of Discretion

Variance Doctrine
 Situations under such doctrine

Doctrine of Supervening Facts