Political Law

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
r
a
B
With the assistance of Atty. Clemente L. Reyes

(Admitted to the Bar on 24 April 2015)
b
o
R
s
e
l
1. What is the nature of the Philippine Constitution?
r
a
B
an
Ch
Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA: The 1987 Constitution just like the 1935 Constitution is rigid.
Both Constitutions require the ratification of the Senate of any treaty executed by the President
but Executive Agreements need not be ratified. Supplemental instruments or agreements which
seek to implement a treaty need not be ratified.
s
e
l The Court gave the following rules in the
Francisco v. House of Representatives (2003):
b
interpretation of the Constitution:
o
R
Verba legis: whenever possible, the words in the Constitution must be given their
n when technical terms are employed. ar
ordinary meaning except
a
Ratio legis et h
anima: the words in the Constitution shouldB
be interpreted in accordance
s
with the intent
of the framers.
C
Ut magis valeat quam pereat: the Constitution mustlbeeinterpreted as a whole.
b
2. What is the concept of the supremacy of the Constitution?
o
R
In Manila Prince Hotel v. Government Service
Insurance System, the Court held:A constitution
r
n
a and administration of a nation. ItBisasupreme,
is a system of fundamental laws for the governance
h by the authority from which it emanates.
imperious, absolute and unalterable except
It has been
s
defined as the fundamental and C
paramount law of the nation. It prescribes
the
permanent
e
framework of a system of government, assigns to the different departments
l their respective
b
powers and duties, and establishes certain fixed principles on which government
is founded. The
o
fundamental 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 mustR
be determined and all public
r
n
authority administered. Under the doctrine of constitutional
supremacy,
if a law or contract
a
a
violates any norm of the constitution that law orh
contract whether promulgated by the B
legislative or by the executive branch or entered
s
C into by private persons for private
purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution ise
the
land
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute
b
contract.
Ro
an
Ch
1
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
3. What are the three basic parts of the 1987 Constitution?

Constitution of Liberty: Bill of Rights
Constitution of Government: Government Organization and Functions
r
a
4. A majority of the incumbent members
of the Senate and the House of Representatives
B
want to introduce changes in the
Constitution.
What options are available to them?
s
e
l Sec. 1: By Congress as a constituent assembly upon a vote of
a. Congress, Art. XVII,
b
of all its members. The constituent assembly may introduce revisions to the constitution.
o
R
Gonzales v. COMELEC (1967): The congress has legislative power which is plenary in
nbut the power to amend the Constitutionais r
nature
not included. It is within the constituent
a
power
of
the
people
which
has
been
duly
delegated
to Congress when it convenes itself
B
h
as
a
constituent
assembly.
Congress
continues
to
exercise
its legislative body even it has
s
C already been convened as a constituenteassembly.
l
b
b. Constitutional Convention,
Art. XVII, Sec. 3: By 2/3 vote of all members of Congress
o
call a constitutional convention
or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the
R
electorate the question
r convention may
nof calling such convention. The constitutional
a
likewise introducea
revisions to the constitution.
B
h
s
C
Imbong v. COMELEC (1970): The Court upheld the power of Congress to enact the
e provided the same do not clash
implementing details of the constitutional convention
l
b to be amended.
with any specific provision of the Constitution sought
o
5. Disgruntled by the persistent scheme of theR
members of Congress to insert pork barrel
r the
funds in the General Appropriations Act,n
a number of civic minded citizens rallied
a
a
electorate to introduce amendment to the Constitution to address this concern.
B What is
h
appropriate method to introduce such
amendment?
s
C
e
l 12% of the total
The people through initiative, Art. XVII, Sec. 2: Upon petition of at least
b
number of registered voters, of which every district must be represented
by at least 3% of the
o
voters therein. This may only be done once every 5 years (Sec. 2, Art.
XVII).
R
r
n
6. How are amendments and revisions to the Constitution
a
a ratified?
B
h
In case of amendments proposed by Congress or a Convention, Art. XVII, Sec. 4, paragraphs
C
e
1: Ratification by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite conducted by COMELEC which
l
shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor 90 days after the approval of the amendment
or
b
revision.
o
R
In case of amendments proposed through initiative, Art. XVII, Sec.
n4, paragraph 2:
Ratification by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be helda
not later than 60 days
nor later than 90 days after certification by COMELEC of the sufficiency
of the petition.
h
C
Constitution of Sovereignty: Method of Amendment
7. Is judicial review available in the amending process?

Yes. Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160: The S.C. may exercise judicial review over any
matter relative to the process of amending or revising the Constitution. Revision of the
Constitution cannot be carried out through Peoples Initiative.
r
a
B
8. In the event the Bangsamoro Basic Law is enacted into law, may the Philippine flag be
changed?
s
e
l
Yes but not by mere law but by amendment or revision of the Constitution. (Art. XVI, Sec. 1)
b
o
No. Consolidated
Province of Cotabato v. G.R.P., G.R. No. 208566, October 14,
RPetitions:
2008. The Bangsamoro
Juridical
Entity is not a political r
subdivision within the contemplation of
n
the Constitution.
It
is
more
in
the
nature
of
an
associative
state under public international law
a
a
B
and ith
can eventually gain statehood. The Court held that no province, city, or municipality, not
s as having an associative relationship with the
even
the ARMM, is recognized under our laws
C
e
national government. Indeed, the concept l
implies powers that go beyond anything ever granted
b
by the Constitution to any local or regional
government. It also implies the recognition of the
o
associated entity as a state. The Constitution,
does not contemplate any state in this
R State, muchhowever,
jurisdiction other than the Philippine
less does it provide for a transitory status that
aims to prepare any part of Philippine
an territory for independence. Bar
Power of expanded judicial
s
Ch review:
e
On the issue of withdrawal of MOA by the Government oflthe Republic of the Philippines: In
b judgement on the MOAD despite
the exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court rendered
o
the fact that the same has become moot and academic. It said that: For a court to exercise its
power of adjudication, there must be an actualR
case or controversy one which involves a
r
n
conflict of legal rights, an assertion a
of opposite legal claims susceptible ofajudicial
resolution; the case must not be moot
other similar
hor academic or based on extra-legal sor B
considerations not cognizable by aC
court of justice. A case becomes moot and academic
when its
e
purpose has become stale. An action is considered moot when it no
longer presents
l or dead or when
a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic
b
the matter in dispute has already been resolved and hence, oneo
is not entitled to judicial
intervention unless the issue is likely to be raised again between R
the parties. Simply stated, there
is nothing for the court to resolve as the determination thereof
anhas been overtaken by subsequent Bar
events xxx
h
C
In David v. Macapagal-Arroyo(2006), this Court held that the moot and academic principle nots
e
being a magical formula that automatically dissuades courts in resolving a case, it will decide
l
bof the
cases, otherwise moot and academic, if it finds that (a) there is a grave violation
o
Constitution; (b) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is
Rprinciples to
involved; (c) the constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
n
guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (d) the case is capable of repetition yet evading
a
review.
h
C
9. Is the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity considered a political subdivision?
The Supreme Court justified the review in the MOA AD case using the third exception.
10. Can the newly-elected President propose to change the countrys name, national
anthem and government seal?
Yes. The countrys name, national anthem and government seal may be changed by law provided
the same is submitted to the people for ratification (Art. XVI, Sec. 2).
r
a
11. May the President be held liable
B for the death of police officers in an encounter with the
National Peoples Army understhe principle of command responsibility?
e
l
No. The principle of command
responsibility/ chain of command will only apply when the
b
President acts as Commander-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (Art. XVI, Sec. 4,
o
Art. XVI, Sec. 5,
RArt. XVIII, Sec. 24). The Philippine National Police is not part of the Armed
Forces of then
Philippines.
r
a
a
B in the country, some foreign-owned
12. Inh
view of the growth of cable television industry
s
broadcast
the Philippines and register under
C media would like to engagecanbusiness
ecompetein with
Philippine laws with the hope that it l
local companies. Is this legally
b
possible?
o and management of mass media shall be 100%
Rownership
No. The Constitution provides that
r
Filipino owned (Art. XVI, Sec.
a
an 11(1)).
B nationals. Can it be
h Company is a company owned bysMexican
13. Adorable Advertising
C
allowed to engage in advertising business in the Philippines?
e
l
b companies shall be 70% Filipino
No. The Constitution provides that ownership of advertising
o
owned (Art. XVI, Sec. 11(1), Art. XVIII, Sec. 23).
R
r
n
14. Only independent states may become subjects of public international law. Characterize
a
a
an independent state.
B
h
s
C Rueda, 42 SCRA 23 (1971): The existence
Collector of Internal Revenue v. Campos
of a state is
eis required
l
a function of recognition in a community of nations. The Court said that a state
in line
b
with Pound's formulation that it be a politically organized sovereign community
independent of
outside control bound by penalties of nationhood, legally supremeo
R within its territory, acting
through a government functioning under a regime of law. (Elements: people, territory,
r
government and sovereignty).
a
an
hbe reviewed since the same overlookeds B
15. May citizens belatedly ask that treaty provisions
C
e
the damages they sustained?
l
b
No. Relations between nations may be jus gentium (governed by the law of nations) o
and jus inter
gentis (agreement between nations).
R
n
Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, April 25, 2010 and August a
13, 2014: The Supreme
Court adopted ICJs ruling in Barcelona Traction that within the limits prescribed
by international law,
h
C
4
a State may exercise diplomatic protection by whatever means and to whatever extent it thinks fit, for
it is its own right that the State is asserting. Should the natural or legal person on whose behalf it is
acting consider that their rights are not adequately protected, they have no remedy in international
law. The Court concluded that the State is the sole judge to decide whether its protection will be
granted, to what extent it is granted, and when will it cease.
r
a
B
Since the Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of foreign relations
for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners' claim against the Government of Japan
is left to the exclusive determination and judgment of the Executive Department. The Court
cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive
Department. The Court held that a mandatory injunction will not lie since it requires the
performance of a particular act. Hence, it is an extreme remedy to be granted only if the
following requisites are attendant, namely:
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
a
an
B of such right; and
h
(b) There is a material and substantial invasion
s
C
e
writ to prevent irreparable injury to the applicant; and
(c) There is an urgent need for the l
no other ordinary, speedy, andbadequate remedy exists to prevent the infliction of
irreparable injury.
Ro
law? r
16. What are the three distinct
a
an legal disciplines in international B
h
Three distinct legal disciplines in international law: public international law (treaty law, law
s humanitarian law, law
C criminal law, human rights law, international
of the seas, international
e
l jurisdiction; and what law will be
on war); conflict of laws (question of which entity would have
b
applied in the issues to be resolved); and supranational law (regional agreements which may
render inapplicable domestic law if it conflicts with o
Rthe supernational legal system).
r
n a warship of the United States ofaAmerica
17. May private individuals bring a suita
against
for its grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging
operations which cause andB
continue to
h
cause environmental damage toC
the marine resources of the Philippinessin violation of
e
environmental laws of the country?
l
b of standing first
Bishop Arigo et al v. Scott H. Swift et al: The Court held that the liberalization
o
enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to minors and generations
is now enshrined
Ryet unborn,
in the Rules which allows the filing of a citizen suit in environmental
cases.
The
provision on
r
n and direct interest,
a
apersonal
citizen suits in the Rules collapses the traditional rule on
on the
B
h
principle that humans are stewards of nature.
s
C
e
The Court reiterated its ruling in the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals, we further
l
expounded on the immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts, as follows:
b
o
The precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state isR
a long-standing
n
rule of customary international law then closely identified with the personal
immunity of
a
a foreign sovereign from suit and, with the emergence of democratic states, made to
attach not just to the person of the head of state, or his representative,
Ch but also distinctly
(a) The applicant has a clear and unmistakable right, that is, a right in esse;
to the state itself in its sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to a suit are those of a
foreign government done by its foreign agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic
personage, but acting in his official capacity, the complaint could be barred by the
immunity of the foreign sovereign from suit without its consent. Suing a
representative of a state is believed to be, in effect, suing the state itself. The proscription
is not accorded for the benefit of an individual but for the State, in whose service he is,
under the maxim - par in parem, non habet imperium that all states are sovereign equals
and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. The implication, in broad terms, is that if
the judgment against an official would require the state itself to perform an affirmative
act to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amount needed to pay the
damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as being against the state itself,
although it has not been formally impleaded.(Emphasis supplied.)
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
a
B
r
a
B
an
Ch
18. John Williams is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces participating the Balikatan
exercises under the Visiting Forces Agreement. Peeved by the attitude of Pedro Reyes, a
Filipino waiter, in a local bar in Olongapo City, he hit him and Reyes fell on the ground
which accidentally caused his death. Can John Williams be criminally held under
Philippine laws?
s
e
l
b
Yes. In Nicolas v. Romulo, Daniel Smith was tried and convicted of rape under the Revised
o
Penal Code. As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora, the
R
VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as a treaty by the
r of the United States
ncertified by the duly authorized representative
United States as attested and
a
a
government.
B
h
s
C
e States troops and personnel
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United
l
visiting the Philippines to promote common security
between the US and the
b interests
Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines
to govern such visits of military
o
personnel, and further defines the rights of the United
R States and the Philippine government in
the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movementn
of vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation
r
a
a
of equipment, materials and supplies.
B
h
s
Cwere fatally shot in a restaurant in Cebu
19. Two consular officers of China
City. The two
e
assailants were also identified as consular officers of China as well. May
the
two
assailants
l
be held liable under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code of the b
Philippines?
RofoChina, the government of
Considering the victims are also members of the diplomatic corps
r
China may invoke diplomatic immunity from the domesticn
laws of the receiving state. The
a
a
sending state may take custody of the two assailants and it will be responsible for their B
repatriation and eventual prosecution under the sendingh
s
C states domestic laws.
e
l he
20. If an ambassador of a foreign country is found liable under Philippine laws, how will
b
be tried?
o
R
The Supreme Court shall exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors. (Sec.5
(1), Art. VIII)
an
Ch
6
Please take that in this instance, the Supreme Court is a trier of facts. The same provision
also allows the Court to receive evidence over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
mandamus, quo warranto and habeas corpus.
Petitions for issuance of the writs of amparo, habeas data and Kalikasan also necessitate
reception of evidence before the Court.
r
a
B
The Court is also a trier of facts when a suit is filed to determine the factual basis of the
declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and must decide
the same within a period of 30 days from the date of filing which is an exception to the
general rule that it has 24 months to decide on cases. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)
b
o
R
s
e
l
The Court en banc also receives evidence when it convenes the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. (Sec.4, Art. VII)
r
a
B
an
Ch
21. What will be the effect on an action filed before the Supreme Court if the Court did not
meet the required majority vote?
s
e
Isagani Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, G. R. No.l
135385, December 6, 2000: The Court said it in this
b
wise: As the votes were equally divided
(7 to 7) and the necessary majority was not obtained,
o after redeliberation, the voting remained the same.
the case was redeliberated upon. However,
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule R
56, Section 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the petition is
r
DISMISSED.
a
an
BThe rights of the indigenous
h Peoples Rights Act remains in effect.
Therefore, the Indigenous
s
C
peoples remain protected. Equally, the state shall continue enjoy
right to govern and the right
e the and
l
to own properties and may regulate the exploitation, development
utilization of its natural
b
resources as it may deem fit in exercise of the general welfare clause.
o
R
22. May a taxpayer file a suit to compel Congress to enact a law making the use of
r
marijuana for medical reasons legal? an
a
B
h
No. The writ of mandamus will C
not lie because this violates the principle s
of separation of
powers. It is discretionary on the part of Congress to consider bills which its e
judgment will serve
l
the public. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle
actual
controversies
b
involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable, and o
to determine whether or not
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
R of jurisdiction on the part
of any branch or instrumentality of government. (Sec.1,nArt. VII). There is no legally
r
a
demandable right to compel Congress to make such law. a
hin court to nullify a service contracts B
23. May the tarsiers of Loboc, Bohol bring an action
C
e
signed by the President?
l
b
Yes, in Resident marine mammals of Tanon Strait joined in and represented
herein by
o
R capacity as
human beings Gloria Estenzo Ramos and Rose-Liza Eisma-Osorio, in their
n
legal guardians and as responsible stewards of God's creations v. Secretary
Angelo Reyes et
al(G.R. No. 180771, April 21, 2015), the Court allowed the residenta
mammals of Tanon
h
Strait as petitioners
C
7
provided that the action is brought in the nature of a citizen suit with natural persons acting as
their legal guardians and as friends for being stewards of creation. Under the Rules of Procedure
in Environmental Cases. A citizen suit is encouraged for the protection of the environment. This
provision liberalizes standing for all cases filed enforcing environmental laws and collapses the
traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the principle that humans are stewards of
nature. The terminology of the text reflects the doctrine first enunciated in Oposa v. Factoran,
insofar as it refers to minors and generations yet unborn.
s
e
l
r
a
B
24. In the action filed by the stewards of the Bohol tarsiers, can the respondents claim that
their approval of service contracts, which require presidential approval, amounts to
approval of the president under the doctrine of qualified political agency?
b
o
R
No. The Court reiterated its ruling in Joson v. Torres. In this case, the Court explained the
concept of the alter ego principle or the doctrine of qualified political agency and its limit in this
wise: Under this doctrine, which recognizes the establishment of a single executive, all
executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads
of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and,
except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in
person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious
executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the
executive departments, and the acts of the Secretaries of such departments, performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief
Executive presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive.
an
Ch
s
e
l
b
o
r
a
B
r
a
B
h
reiterated: As this Court has held in La Bugal,
our Constitution requires that
The Court further C
s
e
with
the President himself be the signatory of service agreements
l foreign-owned corporations
of our minerals, petroleum, and other
involving the exploration, development, and utilization
b
xxx it must be shown that the government
mineral oils. This power cannot be taken lightly. o
agency or subordinate official has been authorized
R by the President to enter into such service
be at least shown that the President
contract for the government. Otherwise, n
r
a
a it should
None of these circumstances is evident
in the
subsequently approved of such contract explicitly.
B
h
case at bar.
s
C
e
25. The President granted Mr. Estrada pardon. Mr. Estrada was elected
Mayor of Manila.
l
b
Alicia, a registered voter of Manila questioned the grant of pardon alleging the text of the
onot qualified to hold the
pardon appears to be conditional and therefore, Mr. Estrada is
R
post of Mayor. Is the position of the registered voter tenable?
r
n
a
a
No. The 1987 Constitution, specifically Section 19 of Article VII and Section 5 of Article IX-C, B
h
provides that the President of the Philippines possesses the power to grant pardons, along withs
C
other acts of executive clemency, to wit: Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, oreas
land
otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations,
b
pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. There
ocan be no
other conclusion but to say that the pardon granted to Mr. Estrada was absolute inR
the absence of
a clear, unequivocal and concrete factual basis upon which to anchor or support
the Presidential
intent to grant a limited pardon. He was granted an absolute pardon that fully
restored all his civil
an
and political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek publich
elective office, the focal
C
an
point of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended to former Mr. Estrada is complete,
unambiguous, and unqualified.
Please note that the only instances in which the President may not extend pardon remain to be
in: (1) impeachment cases; (2) cases that have not yet resulted in a final conviction; and (3) cases
involving violations of election laws, rules and regulations in which there was no favorable
recommendation coming from the COMELEC. Congress cannot in any way delimit the
pardoning powers of the President. Grant of amnesty requires the consent of Congress.
s
e
l
r
a
B
26. May a former Filipino citizen seek to be elected into public office?
b
o
R
Yes. Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727: The right to govern by virtue of a mandate from
the people is not absolute. The Court held that the will of the people as expressed through the
ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case,
that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict application when the
deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he
must owe his total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to
any other state.
r
a
B
an
Ch
s
e
lA candidate for a political position who repatriated
b
Macquiling v. COMELEC, July 2, 2013:
o continues to use his American passport is deemed not
himself as a Filipino citizen but who
R
qualified to run for an elective position. The passport is indicative of ones citizenship.
r
n
a
and Captain, G.R. No. 210164, August
18,
2015, the Court rule:
Arnado vs. COMELECa
B
h
"Under Section 4(d) of the Local Government Code, a person
s with "dual citizenship" is
C
disqualified from running for any elective local position.e
In Mercado v. Manzano, it was
l must be understood as referring to
clarified that the phrase "dual citizenship" in said Section 4(d)
b
"dual allegiance." Subsequently, Congress enacted RA 9225 allowing natural born citizens of the
oby reason of their naturalization abroad to
Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship
R
reacquire Philippine citizenship and to enjoyn
full civil and political rights upon compliance
with
r
the requirements of the law. They may now
run
for
public
office
in
the
Philippines
provided
that
a
a
B
they: (1) meet the qualifications for holding
h such public office as required by the Constitution
and existing laws; and, (2) makeC
a personal and sworn renunciation of anysand all foreign
eto or at the time of
citizenships before any public officer authorized to administer an oath prior
l
b
filing of their COC."
o
R
27. What is the rule on a claim of Philippine citizenship?
n
aproof to establish such claim. In the Bar
A person claiming Philippine citizenship has the burden of
h citizenship can never be treated likes
case of In re: Vicente Ching, the Court held that Philippine
C
a commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. One whoeis
privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an inchoate right to such citizenship. Asl
such,
b
he should avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and promptitude.
Ro
an
Ch
9
28. What defines the Philippine territory?

Article I, 1987 Constitution: The National Territory
Treaty limits: Treaty of Paris, Art. III

Treaty between Spain and U.S. concluded at Washington on November 7, 1900 and
that between U.S. and Great Britain on January 2, 1930
Method of determining baselines under R.A. No. 3046, June 17, 1961, R.A.
No.5446, September 8, 1968; and R.A. No. 9522( Philippine Archipelagic Baselines
Law) , March 10, 2009, using the straight line approach
Other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction
P.D. No. 1596, June 11, 1978
Two Hundred-Mile Exclusive Economic Zone under P.D. No. 1599, June 11, 1978
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
a
B
an
Ch
r
a
B
29. As a signatory of UNCLOS, may the Philippines seek legal relief on its claim as a
coastal state against another signatory to the agreement?
s
e
l
b
o
Yes. The Philippines filed an arbitration case-The Republic of the Philippines v. The
Peoples Republic of China-to challenge Chinas nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea.
On October 29, 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration has ruled that it has jurisdiction on the
Philippines case questioning the legality of Chinas enormous claims in the South China Sea.
r
a
The Philippines case h
is anchored on the 1982 convention which allows
states the right to
B coastal
manage, explore and
exploit
areas
within
its
200-nautical
mile
exclusive
economic
zone.
s
C
e
lin the South China Sea (which the
It also tackles the status of certain maritime features
b
Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea) and theo
maritime entitlements they are capable of
generating, and the lawfulness of certain actions R
by China in the South China Sea that are alleged
by the Philippines to violate the UNCLOS. n
r
a
a
The Philippines said Chinas assertion
of having indisputable and historicalBclaims that
h
s jurisdiction
extends beyond what is allowed byC
the UNCLOS infringes on the countrys maritime
e
and prevents it from exercising its right under the convention.
l
b
Please note the following relevant provisions of the U.N. Convention
on the Law of the Seas,
Ro
April 30, 1982:
r
a
an
Internal waters of the Philippines consist of waters around,
between and connecting the islands
hand dimensions, including the waters ins B
of the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their breadth
C
bays, rivers and lakes. No right of innocent passage for foreign vessels exists in the caseeof
internal waters. (Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law, 5 ed., 1998, p. 407). l
b
o
Under UNCLOS, however, warships enjoy a right of innocent passage when a portion of
the territorial water of the coastal state is used for international navigation. R
n
a
Article 42(2) of UNCLOS provides that there shall be no suspension of innocent passage through
straits used for international navigation. The right of the coastal state
Ch to suspend the same
an
th
10
requires that the coastal nation must publish the same and without any publication, it cannot
insist to suspend the use of such body of water. A claim that suspension of innocent passage is
necessary for national security may be cited by the coastal state. Upon the other hand, if a war
ship delayed its right of innocence, the same may justified under Article 18(2) of UNCLOS if the
delay was caused by rendering assistance to persons or ship in distress.
r
a
B
Contiguous zone is the zone contiguous to the territorial sea and extends up to twelve nautical
miles from the territorial sea and over which the coastal state may exercise control necessary to
prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations
within the territory or territorial sea. (Article 33 of UNCLOS)
b
o
R
s
e
l
Exclusive Economic Zone is the zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from the baselines of a
state over which the coastal state has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and
exploiting, conserving and managing its natural resources, whether living or non-living, of
the waters super adjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and subsoil and with regard to other
activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone. (Articles 56 and 57,
UNCLOS)
r
a
B
an
Ch
s
e
l of the flag of the state it flies, but there must be a
Flag state means a ship has the nationality
b
genuine link between the state and the ship. (Article 91, UNCLOS)
o
R
Flag of convenience refers to a state with which a vessel is registered for various reasons such as
rno genuine link with
low or non-existent taxationn
or low-operating costs although the ship has
a
a
that state. (Harris, ibid. p.425)
B
h
s
C
29. Can a private party make a government entity liablee
on a contract which that private
l
party executed with another private party?
b
o
No. Under the principle that the state cannot be sued without its consent, a third party cannot
R
hold a government entity liable. The government entity is a stranger to the contract.
r
n
a
a
Dept. of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA:
The state cannot be sued without its B
consent. The
h
assets of the government cannot be
held
liable
for
liabilities
of
a
private
person.
Such assets
s
C
cannot be subject to levy and garnishment for to allow such actions would e
impair government
l
operations and delay delivery of vital public services.
b
o
30. Can a local government unit excuse itself from R
paying the balance of just
compensation?
r
n
a
a
Yujuico. Atienza, 472 SCRA 463. The City of Manila
h cannot be excused from paying the B
property owner the balance of just compensationC
because it was the city which initiated thes
e
expropriation proceedings.
l
b
Please note that the rule on torts committed by special agents under the Civil Code,
Art. 2180
o
(Consent to be sued includes actions for tort this is an express consent to beR
sued)
n
a
h
C
11
Teotico v. City of Manila: The City of Manila was held liable under the provision of the Civil
Code which mandates it to maintain and ensure the safety of the public in all public places like
roads (even national roads) in its territorial jurisdiction.
By law, GOCCs have the right to sue and be sued.
r
a
B
Government is not immune from suit due to implied consent: When the Government enters into
business contracts; and when it would be inequitable for the Government to claim immunity
s
e
l
31. Can a government counsel be personally held for damages through a counterclaim
while defending the interest of the state?
b
o
R
No. Chavez v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282: A public officer may not be held liable for the
counterclaim by one of the accused when he performs his duties in good faith.
r
a
B
an
Ch
32. Assume a situation where there is a seeming conflict as to availment of rights of a

Filipino citizen under an international agreement and a Philippine law, which would
prevail, the domestic law or the international agreement?
s
e
l
Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, b
343 SCRA 377. Speaking through Justice Melo, the Court
said that the individual citizen iso
speck of particle or molecule vis--vis the vast and
R butHisaonly
overwhelming powers of government.
guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his
fundamental liberties under n
the Bill of Rights which shield him in times r
In dismissing
a of need.
a a citizen's basic due process rightsBagainst
the petition, the Court upheld
the government's
ironclad duties under h
The constitutional issue in the case at bar does not even call for
srights, although not guaranteed
C a treaty.
"justice outside legality,"
since private respondent's due process
e
l It chose not to favor the strict
by statute or by treaty, are protected by constitutional guarantees.
b
construction over guarantees against the deprivation of liberty because that would not be in
keeping with the principles of democracy enshrined o
Rin the Constitution.
r
n a state of war?
33. Can the President of the Philippinesa
declare
a
B
h
No. The Constitution provides thatC
only Congress may declare the existence of
a state of war.
s
*Note that Congress cannot even declare a state of war but can only recognizeeits existence under
lof national policy.
the Constitution Please relate with the renunciation of war as an instrument
b
o
The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of nationalR
policy: In the field of public
international law, the law of war has two dimensions: justifications
n to engage in war(jus ad ar
bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus a
in bello or International humanitarian
law). As a humanitarian concern, the laws of war h
address declarations of war, acceptance B
of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war;C
military necessity (use of an attack or actions
e
intended to help the military objective and use of proportional and excessive force to endanger
l
civilians(, along with distinction (careful assessment as to who are combatants b
and the
o
civilians) and proportionality( the legal use of force whereby belligerents must make sure that
Rconcrete and
harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the
n
direct military advantage anticipated attack anticipated by an attack on military objective; and
the prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering. a
Ch
12
The laws of war should mitigate the consequences of war by:
Shielding both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering;
Ensuring that certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the
enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians, are protected;
and
endeavoring that peace is restored.
s
e
l
r
a
B
34. The Philippine Constitution has several provisions on respect for human dignity and
human rights (Art. II, Sec. 11, Art. III, Sections 17-19, and Art. XVI, Sec. 5(2)). Is the
Philippine government a signatory to any international agreement on human rights?
b
o
Yes. The Universal
R Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by
the United Nations
Assembly as an offshoot r
of the aftermath of World War II.
n
a BillGeneral
The International
of Human Rights consists of thea
Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
h
the International
Covenant on Economic, Social B
Cultural Rights, and the International
C on Civil and Political Rights andeitsstwoandOptional
Covenant
Protocols. In a strict sense, the
l
Declaration is not treaty but it has been considered
as a constitutive document for the purpose of
b rights.
defining fundamental freedoms and human
o
Rconsidered economic migrants. What efforts has the
35. A number of Filipinos are
r
n
government done to ensure
a
a the protection of Overseas Filipino Workers?
B
h
The Philippines is a signatory to the International Conventionson the Protection of the Rights
C
of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
e This instrument is multilateral
l
treaty governing the protection of migrant workers and
families.
Concluded on 18 December
b
1990, the Convention entered into force on o
1 July 2003 after the threshold of
20 ratifying States was reached in March 2003.R
The Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)
monitors implementation of the convention,n
and is one of the seven UN-linked humanr
rights
treaty bodies.
a
Ba
h
s
36. What other rights do Overseas
CFilipino Workers enjoy?
e
l
In Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC, the Court held that the holding of the
2004 elections had, as
b
the OSG pointed out, indeed rendered the petition moot and academic,
but insofar only as
o
petitioners participation in such political exercise is concerned. The
R broader and transcendental
issue tendered or subsumed in the petition, i.e., the proprietyn
of allowing duals to participate and
r
a
vote as absentee voter in future elections, however, a
remains unresolved. Observing the
hof the issues, the same may be reduceds B
petitioners and the COMELECs respective formulations
C
into the question of whether or not petitioners and others who might have meanwhile retained
e
and/or reacquired Philippine citizenship pursuant to R.A. 9225 may vote as absentee voter l
under
b retain
R.A. 9189.The Court resolved the poser in the affirmative. The Court held that those who
o
or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, the Citizenship Retention and
R
Re-Acquisition Act of 2003, may exercise the right to vote under the system of absentee voting in
n
Republic Act No. 9189, the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 pursuant
a to Sec 2 of Article
Ch
13
V of the Constitution which mandates that Congress shall provide a system for absentee voting
by qualified Filipinos abroad.
37. The Constitution has enshrined the family as a basic autonomous social institution
under Sections 12 and 13, Art. II and Art. XV- The Family. May Congress intrude into this
basic social institution?
r
a
B
The Court has recognized that under Art. 52 of the Civil Code, marriage is not a mere contract
but an inviolable social institution.
s
e
l
b
o
Issue on Right to
Privacy: Section 23(a) (2) (i) of the RH Law intrudes into martial privacy
R
and autonomy
and goes against the constitutional safeguards
r for the family as the basic
n
a
a Particularly, Section 3, Article XV
social institution.
of the Constitution mandates the State to
Baccordance with their religious convictions
h
defend:
(a) the right of spouses to found a family in
s
Cthe demands of responsible parenthood and
and
the right of families or family associations to
e (b)of policies
participate in the planning and implementation
and programs that affect them. The
l
b
RH Law cannot infringe upon this mutual
decision-making, and endanger the institutions of
marriage and the family.
Ro
ra hospital or medical
Issue on violation of Freedom
of Religion: The provision which obliges
a
an
practitioner to immediately
refer a person seeking health care and
services
under the law to
B
h
another accessible healthcare provider despite their conscientious
s objections based on religious
C
or ethical beliefs violate the religious belief and convictione
of a conscientious objector. They
l or the Free Exercise Clause,
are contrary to Section 29(2), Article VI of the Constitution
b
whose basis is the respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.
o
R
Issue on violation of Equal Protection Clause: Excluding public health officers from being
rclause.
n
conscientious objectors (under Sec. 5.24 a
of the IRR) also violates the equal protection
a
There is no perceptible distinction between
public health officers and their private B
counterparts.
h
In addition, the freedom to believe
is
intrinsic
in
every
individual
and
the
protection
of this
s
C
e
freedom remains even if he/she is employed in the government.
l
b
Issue on Right of the State to impose Penalties: Using the compelling
state interest test, there
o
is no compelling state interest to limit the free exercise of conscientious
objectors. There is no
R
immediate danger to the life or health of an individualn
in the perceived scenario. While
r
a
penalties may be imposed by law to ensure compliance toa
it, a constitutionally-protected right
B
must prevail over the effective implementation of the
s
Chlaw.
eof
38. One of the salient features of the Constitution is the recognition of the autonomy
l
bunder
local governments under Section 25 and Art. X. What the political subdivisions
o
Section1 of Article X?
R
n
Provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays as well as the autonomous regions of ARMM and
a
CAR.
h
C
Imbong v. Ochoa (April 8, 2014): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the RH Bill
as a valid exercise of police power.
14
39. What are the mandatory requirements to create a local government unit?
Factors to be considered in the creation of local government unit: (PILA)
Population to be authenticated by the National Statistics Office (now Philippine Statistics
Authority); population must be actual and certification can only be issued by the Chief
Statistician (Aldaba v. COMELEC, 2010);
r
a
Income: Average of two-year of the
government unit to be certified by the Department of
Blocal
Finance. Note that all treasurers
of
all
local government units are appointed by the
s
e
Secretary of Finance.
l
b
The share of the local
government in the IRA is included in the computation of income.
o
(Alvarez v. Guingona,
R 1996)
rcomprising of islands. The land area
n
Land Area:
Area must be contiguous except for provinces
a
a
B of the DENR. (Navarro v. Ermita,
must be
authenticated by the Land Management Bureau
h
s
C
e
2011), where the Court ruled in favor of the
constitutionality
of Dinagat as a province despite the
l
fact that it did not meet the prescribedb
2,000 square meter area. It is impossible to achieve the
minimum area requirement since the
province of Dinagat is composed of islands and cannot be
o
R
contiguous.
n
ar
a government units and additionalBcongressional
Rule on creation of local
districts: a
plebiscite is requiredh
in the creation of local government units but not in the creation of
s
C districts.
additional congressional
e
lcannot create provinces and the grant
b
Sema v. COMELEC: The ARMM Legislative Assembly
of such power under the ARMM Organic Act iso
unconstitutional. It is not a valid
R deemed
delegation of power. The creation of local government
units in provinces, cities, municipalities,
r of
n
and other political subdivision is a congressional/legislative
prerogative while the creation
a
a
barangays shall be done by local ordinances in cities and provinces (for component
B citiesas and
h
municipalities) through the Sangguniang
Panglungsod
and
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
the
s
C
e
case may be.
l
b
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC (2010). In upholding the legality of the
o
creation of additional 16 cities, the Court held that Congress mayR
apply the revised requirements
in a new law during the pendency of the approval of alln
the bills creating such new local
r
government units.
a
a
B
40. How are boundary disputes among local government
s
Ch units resolved?
e
l
Jurisdiction of boundary disputes:
b
o
Regional trial courts exercise original jurisdiction over boundary disputes R
in involving a
MUNICIPALITY and an independent component city.
n
a
Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary
disputes involving two
h
C
15
municipalities of the same province.

Joint Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes involving
two municipalities of the different provinces.
Sangguniang Panlungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes involving two
barangays of the same city.
r
a
Joint Sangguniang Panlungsod exercises
B original jurisdiction over boundary disputes involving
two barangays of two different s
cities.
le APPELLATE jurisdiction over boundary disputes among local
The regional trial courtb
exercises
government units. o
R order the closure of streets in a private subdivision?
41. May a barangay
r
n
a
a
Yes. In
the case of Sun Valley Homeowners Assn.,
Inc. v. Sanggguniang Barangay of Sun
Brecognize
h
Valley
(July
2011),
Petitioner
wants
the
Court
to
the rights and interests of the
s
C
e failed to establish
residents of Sun Valley Subdivision but it l
miserably
the legal basis, such as its
ownership of the subject roads. Sectionb
21 of the Local Government Code requires the passage
of an ordinance by a local government
unit to effect the opening of a local road. The Court held
o
Rno applicability to the instant case since the subdivision road
that the subject provision can have
r and Aster Streets n
lots sought to be opened to decongest
traffic in the area - namely Rosemallow
a
have already been donateda
by the Sun Valley Subdivision to, and the titles
B thereto already issued
h
in the name of, the City
Government of Paranaque since the year 1964. The Court also noted that
sadministrative remedies because
C was premature for failure to exhaust
the action of the Petitioner
e
the issues presented before which could have been resolvedlby the Mayors office.
b
o
Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga v. C.A. (2007): The Court also held that no
public funds may be used to construct an access R
road which would benefit solely the residents of
r
n
a newly-developed subdivision.
a
a
B a property
h
City of Manila v. Chinese Community
(1919):
A
local
government
may
not
takeover
s
C
for expansion of a public street when such property (cemetery) already servese
a public purpose.
l
b
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Homeowners Assn., Inc.: MMDA cannot require the opening of
o
certain streets inside a private subdivision since it cannot makeR
an ordinance because it has no
rule-making powers. The opening of a street is a way of regulating
use of property. Therefore,
r
MMDA cannot also validly exercise police power.
a
an
B
h
Sanggalang v. IAC (176 SCRA 716): ThroughC
the enactment of an ordinance which hass
e
reclassified Jupiter St., Bel Air Village, the local government may allow the use of former
l
residential lots along the street for commercial purposes.
b
o
42. May a local government unit reclassify the use of land which would
R violate the
provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law?
n
a
The local government has authority to reclassify lands but not when such
reclassification violates
h
C
16
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The exception to this general rule is when the local
government unit had already reclassified the subject land before the effectivity of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.
Buklod ng Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E.MM. Ramos, Inc. (2011): The ordinance
reclassifying the land in question shall prevail over the opposition of the Petitioner. The Court
held Section 3(c), Chapter I of the CARL further narrows down the definition of agricultural
land that is subject to CARP to "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and
not
classified
otherwise.
The CARL took effect on June 15, 1988. To be exempt from the CARP, the subject property
should have already been reclassified as residential prior to said date. The ordinance was enacted
prior to the effectivity of CARL.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
RDevelopment Corp. v. Spouses Espino et al (2013): The Court held that the
Davao New Town
r prior to June 15, 1988; hence, they
n
subject property
had been reclassified as non-agricultural
a
a
are no longer covered by R.A. No. 6657.
B
h
s
43.C
May a zoning ordinance prevail over e
a restriction in the Transfer Certificate of Title
l
which the Ayala Alabang Homeowners Association seeks to impose on the property owner?
b
o
No. The annotation at the back of TCT
No. 149166 covering the subject property provides: PER
222/T-134042 - RESTRICTIONS - The property cannot be subdivided for a period of fifty (50)
years from the date of sale. n
The property shall be used exclusively for r
the establishment and
a
a
maintenance thereon of a preparatory (nursery and kindergarten)
school which may
Bplayground
h
include such installations
as
an
office
for
school
administration,
and garage for
s
C
e
school vehicles. x x.
l
b
The Court held that the above restriction limits the use of the subject property for preparatory
oto the number of classrooms. The Court
(nursery and kindergarten) school, without regard
R
affirmed the judgement of the Court of Appeals
which ordered the Petitioner to cease andrdesist
n
from the operation of the Learning Child School
beyond nursery and kindergarten classes
with a
a
a
B
maximum of two classrooms, is hereby
hAFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that (1) the
two-classroom restriction is deleted,
and (2) the current students of the School ofsthe Holy Cross,
C
e their elementary
the Learning Child School's grade school department, be allowed to finish
l
b of new students to
studies in said school up to their graduation in their Grade 7. The enrollment
o
the grade school shall no longer be permitted.
R
r
n
On the issue of estoppel. The Court held that the Petitioner
cannot invoke estoppel on the
a
abar which
part of the respondents. It said: Estoppel by deed is "a
precludes one party from
B
asserting as against the other party and his privies anyh
right or title in derogation of the deed, or
s
C
from denying the truth of any material facts asserted in it. It said that estoppel has been
ea
l
characterized as harsh or odious, and not favored in law. When misapplied, estoppel becomes
b from
most effective weapon to establish an injustice, inasmuch as it shuts a man's mouth
o
speaking the truth and debars the truth in a particular case. Estoppel cannot be sustained by mere
R
argument or doubtful inference; it must be clearly proved in all its essential elements by clear,
n
convincing and satisfactory evidence. x x x.
a
h
C
17
44. What is social justice?

Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940). In this case the Court defined social justice in this
wise: 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. Social
justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally
justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of
all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
R of social justice is interlinked with the exercise of police power. In the
Note: The precept
rtherefore, must be founded on the
n
same case, the
Court further said that: Social justice,
a
a
recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a society
B
h
and of
the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a
s
C force in our social and economic
combined
consistent with the fundamental and
e thelife,health,
l
paramount objective of the state of promoting
comfort, and quiet of all persons,
b
and of bringing about the greatest good
to the greatest number.
o
R
45. What powers may academic institutions exercise to ensure the right to quality
r
n
education under Sectionsa
1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article XIV?
a
B
h
Viveres and Suzara
v. St. Theresas College-Cebu City: Thes
writ of habeas data will not lie
C
e data. The Court upheld the right
since the respondent school is not in the business of collecting
l
of the school not to allow its students to graduate for violating
the standing policy of the school
b
on wearing immodest apparel and having their photographs
posted
in social media.
o
Rhas the power to suspend students for use of
Miriam College v. CA, 348SCRA 215: The school
r
n
vulgar language in the schools official organ.
The Court upheld the right of a school toa
prescribe
a
B
rules governing discipline of students. h
s
C
e are governed
students
University of San Agustin v. CA 270 SCRA 761: The Court held that theirl
by the rules set forth in the student handbook. The failure of students
bto meet the academic
standards set in the Student Handbook is a ground for disciplinary action.
o
R
Ateneo v. Capulong 222 SCRA 643. The Court upheld the n
authority of the school to suspend
r
a
students who were alleged to have participated in a hazinga
activity which resulted to the death of
one of its students. In this case, the Court took theh
occasion to say that it is the national B
s
C
government that shall provide the overall policy on education to meet national goals. The
e
l
discipline of students pursuing legal career is a matter which exacts rigid scrutiny.
b
46. May a proclaimed candidate in a congressional seat ask the Court to enjoin o
R the election
protest filed against him before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal?
n
a
No. This violates the doctrine of separation of powers. The doctrine of separation of powers is
a principle of government under which three separate branches
Ch of government are
18
empowered to carry out functions without interference or encroachment from another

branch.
Angara v. Electoral Tribunal, 63 Phil. 139, 158 (1936): The Court cannot interfere with an
independent body like the Electoral Tribunal under the principle of separation of powers. It is
premature for the Court to exercise its power of judicial review until after the tribunal has
terminated its proceedings.
r
a
How principle is violated: interference
B and assumption to another branchs functions often
referred to as encroachment s
e
l
47. When can the House
b of Representative Electoral Tribunal take jurisdiction over an
election contest? o
R
The HRET n
may take cognizance of any matter raisedr
a losing candidate related to the
a and qualifications (ERQ) as soonBasathebyCOMELEC
election, returns
proclaims the winning
h
candidate
and the latter shall have taken his oath as a member of the House of
s
C
Representatives.
e
lon the three electoral tribunals enshrined in the
b
Please take note of the following rulings
Constitution:
Ro
r a member of
Reyes v. COMELEC and Tan,
207264, June 25, 2013: To be considered
a
anG.R. No.
Congress, there must be concurrence
of the following requisites: a valid
B proclamation; a proper
oath; and assumptionh
to duty. Absent any of the foregoing, the COMELEC retains jurisdiction
s
over said contest. C
e
l
b
Duenas v. HRET, 593 SCRA 3166: HRET has the competence
to examine questioned ballots; a
o
resolution signed by the majority of the members is sufficient.
R
r are
n
Vinzons-Chato v. HRET and Panotes, G.R. No. 199149, January 22, 2013: digital images
a
a
functional equivalent of the paper ballots
B
h
s
C
Martinez v. HRET, G.R. No. 189034, January 11, 2010: nuisance candidates;
e mockery of
l
election process
b
o
Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET): composed of 3 Justices of the Supreme Court to be
R
designated by the Chief Justice and 6 members of the Senate based on proportional
r
n
representation; the Senior Justice acts as the Chairman.
a
a
hcomposed of 3 Justices of the Supremes B
House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET):
C
e
Court to be designated by the Chief Justice and 6 members of the House of Representatives
l
based on proportional representation; the Senior Justice acts as the Chairman.
b
o
Jurisdiction of Electoral Contests before the SET and the HRET: All matters
pertaining to
R
the election, returns and qualifications of a member, including issues involving
citizenship
an
and appreciation of ballots.
Ch
19
Pimentel v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178413, March 13, 2008: Once COMELEC has proclaimed
the winner, it loses jurisdiction on all issues involving the election, returns and qualifications of
a member of the Senate; the losing party must file the protest before the SET.
Legarda v. de Castro: Petitioner can no longer pursue her election protest because she run for
the Senate during the pendency of the case and after having been proclaimed winner in the
senatorial race, she took her oath. To allow her to pursue the case will result to absurdity. She
cannot be Vice President (executive branch) and be Senator (legislative branch) at the same
time. This will result into incompatibility of offices.
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
a
B
Note: As members of the PET, the justices of the Supreme Court are triers of facts and law
and parties may seek relief to the Supreme Court if they are not satisfied with the findings of
the SET.
r
a
B
an
Ch
48. If members of the Senate and party list members of the House of Representatives are
proclaimed by the COMELEC, what body undertakes the canvass of votes and
proclamation of the President and the Vice President?
s
e
Congress acts as the Board of Canvassers
lin presidential election.
b
o G.R. No. 163783, June 22, 2004. The Congress is a
Pimentel v. Joint Committee of Congress,
Rconstitutional
continuing body and must fulfil its
mandate to conduct the presidential canvass of
votes even it if is in recess.n
The Senate shall convene in joint sessionr
during any voluntary
a
a the votes for President and Vice-President
or compulsory recess to canvass
not later than thirty
B
h
days after the day of the elections in accordance with Section 4,s
Article VII of the Constitution.
C
e
lis a continuing body only on this
Lopez v. Senate, G.R. No. 163556, June 8, 2004: Senate
b
matter and committee hearings and not to consider bills.
o
R
49. Can a losing candidate as kagawad of a barangay file an election protest?
r
n
a
a
Yes. The Municipal Trial Courts have jurisdiction over election contests involving
Bmayelective
h
positions at the barangay level. A party
not
satisfied
with
the
ruling
of
the
trial
court,
file an
s
C
e the appeal. If
appeal before the COMELEC. A division of the COMELEC is assigned to review
l
parties are not satisfied with the ruling of the Division, they can file an appeal
b before COMELEC
en banc and parties may ask the Supreme Court en banc to o
review the decision of the
COMELEC en banc.
R
r
n
Please note that all decisions of the Civil Service Commission,
the Commission on Elections
a
a
B
and the Commission on Audit may be reviewed by the
hSupreme Court en banc.
s
C
e
50. The newly-elected directors of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) requested
l
the Commission of Audit to conduct an audit of the accounts of the organization. Ab
former
director sought to enjoin the conduct of the audit. Will the objection of the former
director
o
R
of the PNRC prosper?
n
aThe BSP is a public
No. BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COA (G.R. No. 177131, 2011)
h
corporation or a government agency or instrumentality with juridical personality
which does not
C
20
fall within the Constitutional prohibition in Art. XII, Section 16. Not all corporations, which are
not government owned or controlled, are ipso facto to be considered private corporations as there
exists another distinct class of corporations or chartered institutions which are otherwise known
as public corporations. These corporations are treated by law as agencies or instrumentalities
of the government which are not subject to the tests of ownership or control and economic
viability but to different criteria relating to their public purposes/interests or constitutional
policies and objectives and their administrative relationship to the government or any of its
departments or offices.
s
e
l
r
a
B
51. Can a public officer claim reimbursement for medical expenses and other travelling
costs?
b
o
R
No. RAMON R. YAP v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT (G.R. No. 158562, 2010). COA may disallow
expenses which do not pass the public purpose test (claims for executive check-up, basic
monthly allowances, reimbursement for gasoline allowance, etc.)
r
a
an
B payment of salaries and benefits to
Any h
disbursement of public funds, which includes
s
C employees and officials, must e(a) be authorized by law, and (b) serve a public
government
l public purpose or public use means any purpose
purpose. As understood in the traditional sense,
b
or use directly available to the general public as a matter of right. The public servant has the
oof public funds is related to the discharge of his official
burden to proof to establish that use
R
functions.
r
n
a
a
52. Twelve new positions were created by a local government but
ordinance was enacted
Bnosought
h
to fund the newly-created
positions.
Subsequently,
the
Mayor
approval of an
s
C
e
ordinance which would allow the persons occupying the newly-appointed
positions to draw
l Mayor before the Office of the
their salaries. A taxpayer filed an action against b
the
Ombudsman. Will the case prosper?
o
R
No. TOLENTINO v. Mayor LOYOLA et. al. (G.R.
No. 153809, 2011).Whatever defect there
may
r
n
have been in the approval of unappropriated
positions
was
cured
subsequently
by
the
creation
of
a
a
B
said position and the revalidation of respondents
That appointment was ultimately
h thusappointment.
s reiterated that
approved by the Civil Service Commission
giving it finality. The Court
C
e
elementary is the rule that the findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman
l are conclusive
when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respectband weight, especially
when they are affirmed by the CA. It is only when there is graveo
abuse of discretion by the
Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made.R
an SECRETARY (G.R. No. Bar
Note: NATIONAL ARTIST VIRGILIO ALMARIO v. EXECUTIVE
189028, January 16, 2013). There is grave abuse of discretion
s
Ch when an act is:
e
l
1) done contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence or
b
2) executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily, out of malice, ill will or personal
Robias.
n a provision
53. Congress enacted the General Appropriations Act (GAA) which included
a
allowing the President to distribute a lump sum amount to all members of the legislative
branch. The GAA allowed the President to prescribe the criteria
Chfor the distribution of
21
such amounts needed by the members of Congress. Special requirements were allowed at
the congressional district level. May Pedro Reyes and other taxpayers question the
constitutionality of the subject provision of the GAA?
Yes. The provision violates the principle of checks and balances. This principle in constitutional
law where there is a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit actions of another
branch in keeping with the doctrine of separation of powers.
r
a
Consolidated Petitions: Belgica B
et. al. v. Executive Secretary et. al., G.R.No. 208566,
s
Alcantara et. al. v. Drilon et. al.
G.R. No. 208493, and Nepomuceno et. al. v. Pres. Aquino et.
e 2013: The Court resolved issues related to procedural matters
al., G.R. No.209251, Nov.l19,
and substantive matters.b
Procedural Matters:
Ro
r raised on the constitutionality of
n to judicial review? Yes, there is aaquestion
asubject
Is the case
BAct. This is a justiciable issue.
h
the provision
of PDAF in the General Appropriations
s
C
e Yes, as taxpayers there are qualified to raise the
Do the petitioners have legal standing to l
sue?
b taxpayers they stand to suffer material injury because
issue of the constitutionality of PDAF. As
o
the funds covered under the General
R Appropriations Act come from revenues collected from
taxpayers.
r
a
an
Substantial Matters:
B
h
s
C
Is there a violation of the principle of separation of powers?
e Yes, the executive branch
encroached upon the power of the legislative branch whenlit determined how the PDAF will be
b of implementation when it identified
distributed. The legislative branch also exercised the power
o
priority projects in their jurisdiction.
R
n
of the
Is there a violation of the principle of checks and balances in the implementationr
a
a
projects under PDAF? Yes, it deprives the President of his item veto power
under
the
B are
h
VI of the 1987 Constitution because the appropriations
constitution Section 27(2), ArticleC
s
e
general (lump sum) instead of being itemized.
l
b
Is there violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative power? Yes, the legislative
o
branch allowed the executive branch to define the parametersR
as to how the PDAF can be
availed of by the members of Congress. The Department ofn
Budget and Management provided
r
for a menu where the funds may be spent.
a
a
B
h
Is there a violation of the constitutional provision
on political dynasty? While portions of thes
C
ethe
PDAF were meant to enhance the continued stay in power of incumbent politicians,
l
constitutional provision prohibiting political dynasty, the same is not self-executing. b
To date,
Congress has not enacted a law to put the provision into effect. Thus, there is no violation
of the
o
R
constitutional provision.
an members of
Is there a violation of the principle of local autonomy? Yes, when the incumbent
Congress dictated which projects would be implemented at theh
C local level without the
22
participation of the local government units, it violated the essence of local autonomy under
Article X of the Constitution.
54. Congress enacted a law which created the Fair Competition Commission (FCC)
under the supervision of the Secretary of Finance. Without awaiting the appointments of
the Chairman and the four Associate Commissioners of the FCC, the Secretary of Finance
published the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the FCC. Is the act of the Secretary
of Finance proper?
s
e
l
r
a
B
No. The act of the Secretary of Finance violated the principle of separation of powers. He should
have first allowed the President to appoint all the five members of FCC.
b
o
R
Two tests of valid delegation: Completeness test and sufficient standard test
r
a
B
an
Ch
How law-making power is delegated: suppletory rule-making (filling in details to ensure

enforcement of the law) and contingent rule-making (ascertaining the facts to bring the law
into operation)
s
e
55. The President reorganized the Officelof the Press Secretary. In the process some of the
b The affected employees questioned the
employees were given new assignments.
o
reorganization arguing that it violated
their security of tenure. Is the legal argument of the
affected employees tenable? R
r
n
a
No. EIIB v. Zamora (Julya10, 2001). The Court held: It having been
duly established that the
Bor agency of the executive
h to carry out reorganization in any branch
President has the authority
s
C
department, what is then left for us to resolve is whether or not
reorganization is valid. In this
ethethey
l
jurisdiction, reorganizations have been regarded as valid provided
are pursued in good faith.
b
Reorganization is carried out in good faith if it is for the purpose of economy or to make
oNo. 6656 provides for the circumstances
bureaucracy more efficient. Pertinently, Republic Act
R
which may be considered as evidence of bad faith in the removal of civil service employees
r
n
made as a result of reorganization, to wit:a
(a) where there is a significant increase in the
number
a
of positions in the new staffing pattern
of the department or agency concerned; B
(b) where an
h
office is abolished and another performing
substantially
the
same
functions
is
created;
(c) where
s
C
e
incumbents are replaced by those less qualified in terms of status of appointment,
performance
lor agency concerned
and merit; (d) where there is a classification of offices in the department
b
and the reclassified offices perform substantially the same functionso
R as the original offices, and
(e) where the removal violates the order of separation.
r
a
an
56. The local government of Manila enacted an ordinance
which granted ABC Corporation
h
to operate a jai alai in the City of Manila. The newly-elected
Mayor refused to grant a B
s
C
business permit to ABC Corporation on the ground that the ordinance cannot prevail over
e
l is
a Presidential Decree which required that the grant of franchise to operate jai alai
invested in the Games and Amusement Board. ABC Corporation asked the Manilab
RTC to
opermit to
issue a writ of mandamus ordering the newly-elected Mayor to issue the business
R
ABC Corporation. As judge, will you issue the writ?
n
a
No. Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting Opinion in
h
this 1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not withoutC
limit. He said that while it is
23
the prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare of the people thru the use of police
power; on the opposite end is the right of an entity to have its property protected against
unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts accord the State wide latitude in the exercise of its
police power to bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. But when its purpose is
putrefied by private interest, the use of police power becomes a farce and must be struck down
just as every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out.
r
a
B
When exercise of police power may be questioned
s
e
l
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant of power, a
government agency cannot exercise police power. The Court said: Clearly, the MMDA is not
a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the Metro
Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation of the
MMDAs functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and regulations for the
general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.-p
b
o
R
r
a
an
h
57. The
municipality of Teresa, Rizal enacted anB
ordinance which sought the expropriation
s evacuation
of C
a property upon which it will buildean
center as part of its Disaster
l
Preparedness Program. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan disapproved the ordinance. May
b of eminent domain?
the municipality still exercise the power
o
Reminent domain is a power delegated by Congress to political
Yes. The exercise of the power of
r
n
subdivisions.
a
a
B on the power of eminent
h 586: The Court reiterated the limitations
Moday v. C. A. 268 SCRA
s
C
domain are that the use must be public, compensation must beemade and due process of law must
be observed. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance l
of such issues as the adequacy of
b
compensation, necessity of the taking and the public use character or the purpose of the taking,
odomain must be genuine and of a public
has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent
R
character. Government may not capriciously n
choose what private property should be taken.
r
a
a
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco
BJanuary 15,
hAgricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551,
compensation is fundamentally a judicial s
function. In the
2014.The determination of just C
e the RTCexercise of the Courts essentially judicial function of determining just compensation,
l
SACs are not granted unlimited discretion and must consider and applybthe enumerated factors
in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR formula (in AO 5-98) that reflect these
ofactors. Courts may, in the
fit the factual situations before
exercise of their discretion, relax the formulas application to R
them. They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any
an deviation from the factors and Bar
formula that the law and the rules have provided.
h
s
C
The time of taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the use and
e
of the
benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the property or as of the filing l
b
complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
o
R
58. Iloilo City initiated expropriation proceedings against Spouses Espinosa. During the
nto settle the case
pendency of the case, the city government and the property owner agreed
a
through a compromise agreement. The Court approved the compromise agreement
h
between the parties. Before fully paying for the property, the C
city government questioned
24
the compromise agreement arguing that it was not the court which fixed the just
compensation. Is the argument of the city government valid?
No. A compromise agreement is valid since it has the effect of a ruling on the merit. The city
government is also precluded to question such ruling of the trial court because it voluntary
submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court. (City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation et. al.
June 25, 2012)
Public Purpose
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
a
B
Housing for the poor: Ortega v. City of Cebu, 602 SCRA 601 (2009)
Taking for a cultural/historical purpose: Manosca v C.A., G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996
r
a
B
an
h
Just
CCompensation
Taking is not justified when a similar facility within the vicinity already serves the same
purpose: Masikip v. Pasig City, 497 SCRA 391(2006)
s
e
l will be the character and use of the land at the
Principal criterion to determine just compensation
b
time of taking: Tinio et al. v. NAPOCOR,
G.R. 160923, January 24, 2011
o
R
Compensation based on R.A.n
6657 is required in the determination of just
if the
ar compensation
a LBP v. Ferrer et al., G.R. No. 172230,BFebruary
property is covered by CARP:
2, 2011
h
Recognition of Fair
Market Value will form part of the basissof just compensation: EPZA v.
C
e
Estate of Salud Jimenez, et al., G.R. No. 188995, August 24,
2011
l
b
Interest rate on just compensation is 6% per annum:o
Apo Fruits Corp. et al. v LBP, G.R. No. 164,
R
October 12, 2010
r
n
a
a
Reconveyance
B
h
s
property for an unreasonable period of time for the public
If government does not use the C
eof the same.
purpose it acquired the property, the property owner can ask for reconveyance
l
bthe property owner can
o
If there is unreasonable delay (5 years) of payment of just compensation,
R
ask for possession of property until just compensation is fully settled.
n
a under a tax treaty between the Bar
59. An American company sought to avail of benefits
h The Commissioner of Internals
Philippines and the Federal Government of Germany.
C
the
Revenue did not allow it to enjoy such benefits. The American company refused to pay e
l
assessment of the BIR and instituted an action before the Court of Tax Appeals. As justice
b
of the CTA, how will rule on the case?
o
R a stranger
I will rule in favor of the BIR and deny the petition of the American Company. Being
n
to the treaty, it cannot avail of the benefits of the tax treaty between the
a government of the
Philippines and Germany.
Ch
25
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In negotiating tax
treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up a
part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not taxed
by the other country. In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several
methods. First, it sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the
state of residence with regard to certain classes of income or capital. The second method for the
elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of source is given a full or limited right
to tax together with the state of residence. In this case, the treaties make it incumbent upon the
state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double taxation.
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
a
B
Power of Taxation: rule on taxation: must be uniform and equitable; Congress to evolve a
progressive system of taxation- The Constitution does not really prohibit the imposition of
indirect taxes which, like the VAT, are regressive. What it simply provides is that Congress shall
"evolve a progressive system of taxation." The constitutional provision has been interpreted to
mean simply that "direct taxes are . . . to be preferred [and] as much as possible, indirect taxes
should be minimized." (E. FERNANDO, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES 221
(Second ed. (1977) (Tolentino v. Secretary of Finance, 1995).
r
a
B
an
Ch
s
e
l as a party list. The members of Aahon are
60. Aahon Party List sought to be accredited
b
males and females which have different sexual preferences. The COMELEC denied their
accreditation based on biblical passages. Is the denial of COMELEC proper?
Ro
r is done solely by
n G. R. No, 190852, April 8, 2010: Accreditation
No. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC,
a
a
COMELEC. The Court
group has the right to
hsaid that under the countrys system of slaws,ofBevery
promote its agendaC
and attempt to persuade society of the validity
its position through normal
democratic means. It is in the public square that deeply helde
and differing opinions
lthatconvictions
should be distilled and deliberated upon. The OSG argues
since there has been neither prior
b
restraint nor subsequent punishment imposed on Ang
oLadlad, and its members have not been
deprived of their right to voluntarily associate, then
there has been no restriction on their freedom
R
of expression or association. The Court n
moral objection offered r
by the
a
a bysaidlaw.thatThustheit held:
COMELEC was not a limitation imposed
To the extent, therefore,
B thatits
h
the petitioner has been precluded, because
of COMELECs action, from publicly expressing
s with other
C on an equal basis in the politicaleprocess
views as a political party and participating
l a transgression of
equally-qualified party-list candidates, we find that there has, indeed, been
b
petitioners fundamental rights.
o
R
Other rulings on party list system:
r
n
a
a
BANAT V. COMELEC, 592 SCRA 294: The Constitution provides that Congress shall B
h provides otherwise and out of the totals
not have more than 250 members unless Congress
C
number of incumbent members not more than 20% shall come from the party list. Ofe
the
party list members, each party list shall be entitled to a maximum of three seats. l
b
o
Paglaum v. COMELEC, 694 SCRA 477 (2013): sectoral representation need not be
R
limited to the poor or marginalized group; extent of national membership; performance
n
in party list election process
a
h
C
26
PGBI v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190529, April 29, 2010. The COMELEC has the power to
delist a party list on two grounds under Section6 (8) of R.A. 7941.
Magdalo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190793, June 19, 2012. The registration of political
parties does not involve administrative liability as it is only limited to the evaluation of
qualifications for registration
r
a
B instituted an action before the Supreme Court to
61. A group of public school teachers
s
question the veracity of the entries
to the congressional journal regarding the passage of
e
the law on grant of additional
allowances
of public school teachers for poll duty in the
l
forthcoming May 2016belections. They alleged that the law signed the President reflected a
lesser amount thato
R what has been reported in the media. Will the action of the public school
teachers prosper?
r
n
a
a
No. U.S. v. Pons, 34 Phil., 729-735 (1916): The courts may not go behind the legislative
B
h
journals
to contradict their veracity.
s
C
e
l
Journal Entry Rule vs. Enrolled Bill Theory
b
o
Morales v. Subido, 27 SCRA 131 (1969): An omission at the time of enactment, whether careless
R supplied however much later wisdom may recomment the
or calculated, cannot be judicially
r
n
inclusion.
a
a
B
h
Astorga v. Villegas,
56 SCRA 714 (1974): The Court held that
that the enrolled bill theory is
s
C
edepartments," which requires the
based mainly on "the respect due to coequal and independent
l
judicial department "to accept, as having passed Congress,
b all bills authenticated in the manner
stated." Thus it has also been stated in other cases that
if the attestation is absent and the same is
o
not required for the validity of a statute, the courts
R may resort to the journals and other records
of Congress for proof of its due enactment. n
r
a
a
B
h
62. What are the three functions of judicial
review?
s
C
e
l
Functions of Judicial Review: Checking looks into possible abuses
of each branch of
b
government; review of decisions of lower courts; Legitimizing looks
into
constitutionality of
o
laws and its application; and Symbolic looks into issues although
they
have
become moot and
R
academic.
r
n
a
a
REMEMBER THE EXPANDED POWER OF JUDICIAL
h REVIEW OF THE S.C. Under B
normal circumstances, S.C. will not disturb the C
findings of facts of administrative tribunalss
e
and the trial courts. However, S.C. may review findings of facts the lower courts l
under
b
recognized exceptions: when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
o
surmises or conjectures; when inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
where there is abuse of discretion; when judgment is based on misapprehensionR
of facts, when
the findings of facts are conflicting; when the Court of Appeals, in makingn
its findings, went
beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to those of the trialacourt; when findings
of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on whichh
C they are based; when the
27
facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed
by the respondents; and when the findings of fact of the C.A. are premised on supposed absence
of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.
General Rule: All courts can exercise judicial review
r
a
Under Civil Code, Art. 7, Statute isB
void when declared unconstitutional
smay produce legal effects
e
Statute is not always void but
l
b
b) Moot Questions
o
R
General Rule: A matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect,
r
n
or events a
have placed it beyond the reach of the law. a
Normally, courts will defer to acting on a
matterh
that has become moot and academic.
B
s
C
Exception: Where matters of transcendentale
l importance arise, the Court render a resolution to
give guideposts to the bench and bar if ab
similar matter should arise in the future.
o
Concept of expanded powerRof judicial review: resolve matters of transcendental
importance/ address matters
r
nwhich have been rendered moot and academic
a
a
B
c) Political Question h
Doctrine
s
C
e on the surface of any case
Baker v. Carr: What is the political question doctrine: "Prominent
l
held to involve a political question is found:
b
o
(1) a textually demonstrable constitutional
R commitment of the issue to a coordinate
political department;
r
n
a
a
B it;
(2) or a lack of judicially discoverable
and manageable standards for resolving
h
s
C
e of a kind
(3) or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination
l
clearly for non-judicial discretion;
b
o
(4) or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent
resolution without
R
expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches
of government;
r
n
a
a
B
(5) or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence
Ch to a political decision already made;es
(6) or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various
l
b
departments on one question.
o
R
The political question doctrine could be read narrowly or more broadly. Read narrowly,
the political question doctrine should be invoked only when the issuen
to the
a presentedThat
Court is one that "has been textually committed to another branch of government."
is,
h
C
Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
28
if the framers of the Constitution made clear their intention that the judiciary not resolve a
particular question of constitutional interpretation, that determination must be respected.
More broadly, the political question doctrine might be invoked when there is a lack of
judicially manageable standards to decide the case on the merits, when judicial intervention
might show insufficient respect for other branches of government, or when a judicial decision
might threaten the integrity of the judicial branch. (Baker v. Carr, 1962)
r
a
Marcos et al. v. Manglapus et B
al. G.R. No. 88211 September 15, 1989: When political
questions are involved, the Constitution
limits the determination to whether or not there has been
s
e
a grave abuse of discretion
amounting
to
or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official
l If gravelack
whose action is being questioned.
abuse is not established, the Court will not substitute
b
its judgment for thato
official concerned and decide a matter which by its nature or by law
R ofto thedecide.
is for the latter alone
r
a
an member of the Senate proposed
63. A newly-elected
a tax measure which would effectively
h
reduce
the tax impositions on salaried employees.B
Is the proposal valid?
s
C
e
No. Demetria v. Alba, G. R. No. L-45129,l
March 6, 1987. All appropriations bill must emanate
b executive branch has no power to transfer one budget
from the House of Representatives and the
o
for another purpose for which it was originally intended.
R
r revenue bills must
n
Tax laws (Art. VI, Sec. a
28, Art. XIV, Sec. 4(3)). All tax, tariff anda
other
originate in the Househ
of Representatives but the Senate may introduce
B amendments.
s
C
Demetria v. Alba, G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987: noe
cross border transfer of funds; all
l
appropriations bill must emanate from the House of Representatives
and the executive branch
b
has no power to transfer one budget for another purpose
for
which
it
was
originally intended.
o
R19, 2013: limitations on the power to enact
Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208493, November
r
n
appropriation bills
a
a
Bof proof to
h
YMCA v. Collector of Internal Revenue,
33
Phil.
217(1916):
taxpayer
has
burden
s
C
e
claim tax exemption
l
b
Quezon City v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No. 166408, Oct. 6, 2008: LGUso
have power to collect local
franchise tax
R
n
a has the power to grant franchise Bar
Del Mar v. PAGCOR, 346 SCRA 484 (2000): only Congress
h
s
Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27(1985): effectivityC
of laws
e
l
b
Ro
an
Ch
29
64. Two members of the House of Representatives figured in a brawl during the heated
deliberation on the passage of the bill legalizing marijuana. The incident was a subject of
media coverage. Delfin Rosario, a taxpayer, asked the Ethics Committee of the House of
Representatives to discipline two members of Congress. Will his action prosper?
r
a
A penalty of suspension, when imposed,
B shall not exceed sixty days.
s
e the attendance of the members of the Cabinet in
65. May the President restrict
l
congressional hearings?
b
o
No. This will violate
R the principle of checks and balances.
r
n
Senate ofa
the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1: The
President cannot clip the powers of the
a
B
legislative
by restricting the attendance of officers and other officials of the executive
hfrombranch
sin the exercise of the constitutionally-mandated
branch
appearing in congressional hearings
C
e
power to conduct inquiries.(referring to Section
l 21 of Art. VII)
b
Neri v. Senate Committees. The executive
o branch may invoke executive privilege in matters
covered by a legislative hearing R
and may even decline attendance or responding to queries if the
r
same is not carried out in aidn
a
a of legislation.
66. May the House ofh
Representatives consider simultaneously B
for inclusion in the Articles
s
C
of Impeachment?
e
l
Feb. 15, 2011. Congress may look into
Yes. Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, G. R. No.b
separate complaints against an impeachable officero
and consider the inclusion of matters raised
R to be forwarded to the Senate as the
therein in the adoption of the Articles of Impeachment
r
n
impeachment tribunal. The Court has repeatedly held that: Impeachment is the most difficult
a
a
nature, a sui
and cumbersome mode of removing a public officer from office. It is, by B
h
the
need
for
a
judicious
and
careful
handling
as shown
generis politico-legal process that signals
s
C
e or bar for its
by the process required to initiate the proceeding; the one-year limitation
l
given the power to
initiation; the limited grounds for impeachment; the defined instrumentality
b
of
guilt.
(Francisco v.
try impeachment cases; and the number of votes required for a finding
o
House of Representatives, on one year rule)
R
r
n
Votes in impeachment proceedings
a
a
h on Justice of HOR is necessarys B
A majority vote of the members of the Committee
C
e
for consideration of its report in a plenary session. (Sec. 3(2), Art. XI)
l
b
A vote of at least 1/3 of all members of the HOR is necessary to either
affirm a
o
favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment or override
its contrary
R
resolution.
an
Ch
Yes. Each house may determine the rules of proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly
behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members, suspend or expel a member.
30
A verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by 1/3 of all members of the

HOR shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment.
Two thirds vote of all members of the Senate is necessary to convict the impeached
public officer.
r
a
Francisco v. HOR, 415 SCRA
B 44: initiation of a complaint for impeachment
sv. Senate of the Philippines et al., G.R. No.200242, July 17,
e
Chief Justice Corona
lof judicial review includes the power of review justiciable issues in
2012: The power
b
impeachment
proceedings.
o
Rthat the positions of the Deputy Ombudsman and the Special Prosecutor
67. Considering
r
n
in the Constitution. May the President
relying solely on his judgment remove
are provided
a
a
B
from office?
them h
s
C
e at al/ BarerasSulit v. Ochoa et al (2014).The
Yes. Gonzales III v. Office of the President
l
Court held that the Office of the President
b has the power to discipline and even dismiss the
other deputies provided under the Constitution as well as the
overall deputy Ombudsman and the o
R that the Ombudsman is vested with broad investigative and
Special Prosecutor. The Court said
r misfeasance,
n
include the scrutiny of all acts of malfeasance,
disciplinary powers. These powers
a
a officials,
including Members of the Cabinet
and nonfeasance of all public
B and key Executive
h
Under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of
officers, during their tenure.
s against the inept, abusive,
envisioned to be the protector of the people
the Ombudsman isC
e
and corrupt in the government, to function essentially asla complaints and action bureau. This
b intends to make the Ombudsman an
constitutional vision of a Philippine Ombudsman practically
o
authority to directly check and guard against the ills, abuses, and excesses of the bureaucracy. As
R
the Ombudsman is expected to be an activist watchman, the Court has upheld its actions,
r
n
powers granted it by the Constitution and
by R.A.
although not squarely falling under the broad
a
a
in line with its official function and consistent
No. 6770, if these actions are reasonably
B with the
h
law and the Constitution.
s
C
e
l
68. A Supreme Court Associate Justice will retire on February 14,
2016.
May President
b
Aquino appoint his replacement when an election ban is in effect?
o
R
Yes. Midnight appointments: The outgoing President refrain
filling vacancies to give the
r
nfrom
a
ahis
new President opportunity to consider names in the light of
new policies especially so when
B
h Sec.15)
he ran on a platform approved by the electorate.( Art. VII,
s
C
De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010: This case questioned the power l
of e
the
President to appoint the Chief Justice during the prohibitive period. The S.C. held b
that the
appointment of the members of the judiciary is not covered by the prohibition o
R on midnight
appointments.
an
Ch
Gutierrez v. HOR, Feb. 15, 2011: consideration of two complaints as basis
31
Power of Removal: For appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President, they may also be
removed if there is loss of trust and confidence in them. Other public servants may be removed
for cause provided for by law.
69. May the representative of the Committee of Justice of the Senate and the House of
Representatives simultaneously represent the Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council?
r
a
B
No. Chavez v. JBC: The Congress is entitled only to one representative in the JBC and not one
for each from the House of Representatives and the Senate.
b
o
R
s
e
l
Recent rulings related to the JBC:

Villanueva v. JBC (2015): A first level trial court must await a 5-year period before he can be
promoted as RTC judge. The Court sustained the power of the JBC to prescribe rules in the
screening of qualified candidates to the judiciary to ensure that only men of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence will be appointed to the bench.
r
a
an
B
h
s
Jardeleza
C vs. Chief Justice Sereno and JBC (2015): Having been denied due process, Jardeleza
should be included in the list of nomineesltoebe appointed as justice of the Supreme Court. An
issue about his integrity was raised in b
the selection process but Jardeleza was never given the
o
opportunity to be heard to overturn the
allegation against him.
R
r of the House of
n
70. With the recently SAF
incident, a newly-elected member
a
athat 44Congress
Representatives proposed
amend the Philippine National
Police to include
B
for confirmation theh
Chief PNP by the Commission on Appointments. Is the proposal
s
C
valid?
e
l
b
No. Article VII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution reads:
"The President shall nominate and,
o
with the consent of the Commission on Appointments,
appoint the heads of the executive
Rand consuls, or officers of the armed forces
departments, ambassadors, other public ministers
r in
n
from the rank of colonel or naval captain,aand other officers whose appointments area
vested
him in this Constitution. He shall also
appoint all other officers of the Government
B whoseby
h
appointments are not otherwise provided
for
by
law,
and
those
whom
he
may
be
authorized
s
C
e lower in rank in
law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of other officers
l
the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of departments, agencies,
commissions, or
b
boards.
o
R
Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987): Appointment ofn
a Bureau of Customs Commissioner Bar
does not need confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
h
C
Tatad v. Commission on Appointments, G.R. No. 183171, August 11, 2008: With the resignations
e
of the nominee, there is no longer an actually justiciable controversy.
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
C
32
71. Gregorio, a police officer, was charged for violation of the VAWC law and an
administrative complaint was likewise filed against him before the Peoples Law
Enforcement Board. Can Gregorio move for the dismissal of the criminal case against him
due to the pendency of his administrative complaint before the PLEB?
r
a
B
No. Acuzar v. Jarolan and Apresa PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010: In administrative
proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right
to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondents
legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to
present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a tribunal vested
with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which
is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained
in the records or made known to the parties affected.
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
n
a
a
72. Lolita is a flight attendant who has exceeded
the prescribed weight of the airline
B
h
company.
the prescribed weight and was
s Sheto meet
C Despite repeated warnings, sheefailed
accordingly dismissed by the airline company.
filed an action before the NLRC for
lthe equal protection of the law. Will the action
illegal dismissal because she was denied
b
prosper?
o
R
No. Ysaregui v. NLRC and PAL:
r clause may only be
n The claim of denial of the equal protection
a
invoked against the state. a
B
h
s
C
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon et al., G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013.
e R.A. 9262 does not violate the
equal protection clause for the following reasons: thel classification rests on substantial
bof the law; and the classification is not
distinctions; the classification is germane to the purpose
o
limited to existing conditions only and apply equally to all members.
R
r
n
a
a
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 et al., G.R.Nos.192935 B
and 193036,
h
December 7, 2010: E.O. is unconstitutional for singling out President Arroyos
administration
s
C
e
only.
l
b
Standards of Review
o
R
Prevailing standard used: Deferential or Rational Basis Scrutiny which establishes a rational
r
connection to serve legitimate state interest.
a
an
B
h
Middle Tier or Intermediate Scrutiny: Challenged
classification serves important an importants
C
e
state interest.
l
b
Strict Judicial Scrutiny: Burden is on the state to prove that classificationo
achieves a
compelling state interest.
R
n
a
h
C
33
73. As counsel of a complainant, how will ensure that you can obtain a valid search
warrant?
HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R. No. 170217, 170694,
December 10, 2012: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the validity of the issuance of
a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any
other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant
issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons and things to be seized.
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
a
B
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012: The credibility of the evidence of the
corpus delicti in a prosecution for illegal possession of marij11ana under Republic Act No.
6425, as amended, depends on the integrity of the chain of custody of the marijuana from the
time of its seizure until the time of its presentation as evidence in court. Short of that, the accused
is entitled to an acquittal because the State fails to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
r
a
B
an
Ch
s
e
l de Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010:
Chain of Custody doctrine: People v. Ronaldo
b
The law enforcers have the duty to preserve the chain of custody over the seized drugs. This
guaranty of integrity of evidence too
R be used against the accused goes to the very heart of his
fundamental rights.
r
n
a
a
Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P.D. 969: Nogales
B v. People, G.R. 191080,
h
November 21, 2011C
s
e
l and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R. No.
Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp.
b
170217, 170694, December 10, 2012: Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a
o
search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts
and circumstances as will warrant a cautious
R
man to believe that his action and the meansn
taken in prosecuting it are legally just and r
proper.
It requires facts and circumstances that would
lead
a
reasonably
prudent
man
to
believe
that an
a
a
B
offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with that offense are in the
s
place to be searched.
Ch
e
l
Loss of protection of right: Sales v. People, G.R. No. 191023, February
6, 2013: The search of
b
the contents of petitioners short pants pockets being a valid searcho
to routine airport
Rhimpursuant
security procedure, the illegal substance (marijuana) seized from
was therefore admissible
nhis short pants pocket after the ar
in evidence. Petitioners reluctance to show the contents of
aand
friskers hand felt the rolled papers containing marijuana,
his nervous demeanor aroused
B
h
the suspicion of the arresting officers that he was indeed
carrying an item or material subject to
s
C
confiscation by the said authorities.
e
l
Yao v. People: personal knowledge is mandatory in issuance of a warrant and notb
reliable
o
information.
R
n
a
h
C
34
74. While serving the search warrant, the law enforcers sensed that more unclicensed
firearms were kept in the locked cabinets. They forced open the cabinets and true
enough several high powered firearms were seized but were not covered by the
warrant. Can the accused move for the exclusion of the seizure of the firearms not
covered by the search warrant?
r
a
B
Yes. People v. Nunez: the seizure of items not particularly described in the search warrant for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 must be returned to the accused unless they are
illegal and will be destroyed by the state.
b
o
R
s
e
l
UNILAB v. Isip: Plain view doctrine will not apply when the following cannot be proved:
prior intrusion must be legal; officer must discover the incriminating evidence inadvertently;
and the object must be immediately apparent.
r
a
B
an
Ch
Exceptions: search incident to a lawful arrest (in flagrante delicto, hot pursuit and escaped
prisoners), search of moving vehicles, plain view doctrine and airport searches; and all
circumstances set forth in the Rules in Criminal Procedure.
s
e
75. Cite instances when the freedom of movement
l may be restricted.
b
Gudani v. Senga: the power of o
the President as Commander in Chief was sustained in
Rbefore
restraining officers from testifying
the Senate.
n
ar a Hold Departure
a Writ of Amparo will not lie toBovercome
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Gonzalez:
h was intended to address the intractable
Order. The Writ of Amparo
problem of extrajudicial
s
C
killings and enforced disappearances.
e
l
b July 18, 2012. The Court may
OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770,
o
impose travel restrictions on judges.
R
n
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan: humanitarianaa persons right to travel is subject to a
therusual
constraints imposed by the very necessity
of safeguarding the system of justice.
In such
Breasons
h
cases, whether the accused should
be
permitted
to
leave
the
jurisdiction
for
is a
s
C
e
matter of the courts sound discretion.
l
b
Other relevant rulings on: Freedom of Abode and Freedom of
Movement: the right to
o
choose ones domicile; right to travel.
R
r
n
Marcos v. COMELEC: the surviving spouse has the righta
to choose her residence other than the
a
B
conjugal home.
h
s
C
Aquino v. COMELEC: a lease contract is not conclusive proof of length of residence to meete
l the
requirements to run for public office.
b
o
Villavicencio v. Lukban: the Mayors order that some 170 individuals be put inR
custody and be
dispatched to Davao City for work is a valid subject of a writ of habeas corpus.
n Freedom of
abode is guaranteed for ours is a government of laws and not of men. a
Ch
35
76. Are professors of law claim that their allegations against a justice of the Supreme Court
for plagiarism protected by free speech?
No. RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED RESTORING INTEGRITY: A
STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS
OF
r
a
B
PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT (A.M. No. 1010-4- SC, 2010): The Court has held that the right to criticize the courts and judicial officers
must be balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary
be protected from due influence or interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens
but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to
discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or
extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency. The accusatory
and vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement exceeded the limits of fair comment and
cannot be deemed as protected free speech.
b
o
R
s
e
l
r
a
B
an
Ch
s
e
l on a the definition of the right as elucidated by a
b
In upholding the Petition, the Court relied
prominent political theorist Ro
r for arriving
T]he theory of freedom
expression involves more than a technique
a
an ofthrough
at better social judgments
democratic procedures.
It
comprehends a vision
B
h
of society, a faith and a whole way of life. The theory
out of an age that was
singrew
C
awakened and invigorated by the idea of new society
which man's mind was free,
e
l and his prospects of creating a
his fate determined by his own powers of reason,
b
rational and enlightened civilization virtually unlimited. It is put forward as a
o exciting and intellectually robust
prescription for attaining a creative, progressive,
R
community. It contemplates a mode
r It
nof life that, through encouraging toleration,
skepticism, reason and initiative,awill allow man to realize his full potentialities.
a
B and
spurns the alternative of a h
society that is tyrannical, conformist, irrational
s
stagnant.
C
e
l
OBrien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions: Social Weather Station v.bCOMELEC, 357 SCRA
504 (2001) (simple public disclosure of survey results)
o
R
Miller Test on Indecent Speech:Soriano v. Laguardia, 587n
a SCRA 79 (safeguard community Bar
values and morals)
h
C
Roth Test on Obscenity: Gonzales v. Kalaw- Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717 (Movie Classification) s
e
l
Clear and Present Danger Test (Do not use the Dangerous Tendency Test)
b
o
A limitation on the freedom of expression may be justified only byRa danger of
in the "dangerous
such substantive character that the state has a right to prevent. Unlike n
a
tendency" doctrine, the danger must not only be clear but also present. "Present" refers to the
time element; the danger must not only be probable but very likely h
C to be inevitable. The evil
THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015)
36
sought to be avoided must be so substantive as to justify a clamp

restraint of a writing instrument.
over
one's
mouth
or
77. May a person who voluntarily surrendered invoke the Miranda rights?
When will Miranda Rights apply
r
a
B
1. One must be in the custody of law enforcers;

2. One must be under investigation for a commission of an offense; and
3. The information sought is testimonial in nature.
b
o
R
s
e
l
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011: Infraction of the rights of an
accused during custodial investigation or the so-called Miranda Rights render inadmissible only
the extrajudicial confession or admission made during such investigation. "The admissibility of
other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law or
rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation."
r
a
B
an
h
78.C
What is transactional immunity?
s
e
l June 22, 2010: Government may enter into an
Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564,
b
agreement to grant immunity provided
ograntee will become a state witness.
R
Transactional Immunity - two
kinds of statutory criminal immunity available
a witness:
r toimmunity
a
athenuse-and-derivative-use
transactional immunity and
immunity Transactional
is
broader in the scope ofh
its protection. By its grant, a witness can noB
longer be prosecuted for any
offense whatsoeverC arising out of the act or transaction e
to s
which the testimony relates. In
contrast, by the grant of use-and-derivative-use immunity, l
a witness is only assured that his or
her particular testimony and evidence derived from it b
will not be used against him or her in a
o
subsequent prosecution. (Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan,
R 476 SCRA 202, 2005)
79. If one has been convicted for violationn
of an ordinance, may be held accountabler
again
a
a
under a national law?
B
h
s
C
No. Requisites of Double Jeopardy (Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
e November 17,
l
2010):
b
o
1. Identity of the elements of the crime committed as set forth in the
R
information.
r
n
2. Accused has entered his plea.
a
a
3. Prosecution and the defense have presented
B
h evidence.
4. The court has ruled on the merits.
s
C
e
5. The decision has become final and executory.
l
b
o
People v. Dante Tan G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010: In People v. Sandiganbayan,
Roperates asthean
Supreme Court explained the general rule that the grant of a demurrer to evidence
n
acquittal and is, thus, final and unappealable. The demurrer to evidence in a
criminal cases is "filed
after the prosecution had rested its case," and when the same ish
granted, it calls "for an
C
37
appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its sufficiency to warrant conviction
beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case on the merits, tantamount to an
acquittal of the accused.
Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. No. 172777, October 19, 2011: It is well-settled that in
criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the
private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the
complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect
may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General.
s
e
l
r
a
B
b
o
To reconsider
of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished
Rofa judgment
for the crime
which he has already been absolved. r
There is reason for this provision of the
n
a In criminal cases, the full power ofBtheaState
Constitution.
is ranged against the accused.
h
s to bail?
80.C
Can a person accused of plunder be entitled
e
l
b
Yes. In JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN
(THIRD DIVISION), AND PEOPLE
o
OF THE PHILIPPINES, the Court
granted Senator Enrile the right to bail. The Court
elucidated that purpose of bail R
is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or
renough to assure the
whenever so required by then
trial court. The amount of bail should be high
a
presence of the accused a
when so required, but it should be no
higher
than is reasonably
B
h
calculated to fulfill this purpose. Thus, bail acts as a reconciling
s mechanism to accommodate
C
both the accuseds interest in his provisional liberty before or
during the trial, and the societys
e
interest in assuring the accuseds presence at trial. It furtherlsaid that in all criminal prosecutions,
b
the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The presumption of
o
innocence is rooted in the guarantee of due process,
R and is safeguarded by the constitutional right
to be released on bail and further binds n
the court to wait until after trial to impose
any
r
punishment on the accused.
a
a
B
h
The Court is further mindful of the
s community
CPhilippines responsibility in the international
arising from the national commitment under the Universal Declaration l
ofeHuman Rights to:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrax x x uphold the fundamental human rights
b as well as value the
worth and dignity of every person. This commitment is enshrined ino
Section II, Article II of our
Constitution which provides: The State values the dignityR
of every human person and
r
n
guarantees full respect for human rights. The Philippines, therefore,
responsibility of
a
aliberty andhasduetheprocess,
protecting and promoting the right of every person to
ensuring
hproceedings before a court, to enables B
that those detained or arrested can participate in the
C
it to decide without delay on the legality of the detention and order their release if justified.
e
In other words, the Philippine authorities are under obligation to make available to l
every
person under detention such remedies which safeguard their fundamental right tob
liberty.
o
These remedies include the right to be admitted to bail.
R
n
a
h
C
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January 18, 2011:
38

Political Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

With the assistance of Atty. Clemente L. Reyes

1. What is the nature of the Philippine Constitution?

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

3. What are the three basic parts of the 1987 Constitution?

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

7. Is judicial review available in the amending process?

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

28. What defines the Philippine territory?

Treaty limits: Treaty of Paris, Art. III

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

32. Assume a situation where there is a seeming conflict as to availment of rights of a

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

The laws of war should mitigate the consequences of war by:

Shielding both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering;

endeavoring that peace is restored.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

municipalities of the same province.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

44. What is social justice?

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

empowered to carry out functions without interference or encroachment from another

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

How law-making power is delegated: suppletory rule-making (filling in details to ensure

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

When exercise of police power may be questioned

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

A verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by 1/3 of all members of the

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

Recent rulings related to the JBC:

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

sought to be avoided must be so substantive as to justify a clamp

1. One must be in the custody of law enforcers;

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

You might also like