2019 UST Golden Notes POLITICAL LAW

POLITICAL LAW
2019 GOLDEN NOTES

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO
TOMAS MANILA
The UST GOLDEN NOTES is the annual student-edited bar review material of the University of Santo Tomas, Fa
Academics Committee USTAddress:

Bar Operations Faculty
Tel. No: (02) 731

(02) 406
Academics Committee
Faculty of Civil Law
University of Santo Tomas
Españ a, Manila 1008
All rights reserved by the Academics Committee of the Faculty of Civil Law of the
Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, the Catholic University of the
Philippines.
2019 Edition.
No portion of this material may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines

or notes, whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic
devises or in any other form, for distribution or sale, without a written permission.
A copy of this material without the corresponding code either proceeds from an illegal
source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose the same.
No. ____________
Printed in the Philippines August 2019.

ACADEMIC YEAR 2019-2020
CIVIL LAW STUDENT COUNCIL
LYODYCHIE Q. CAMARAO PRESIDENT
MARIA FRANCES FAYE R. GUTIERREZ INTERNAL VICE PRESIDENT
KRYSTAL GAYLE R. DIGAY SECRETARY
TEAM: BAR-OPS
NICOLE MARIE A. CORTES CHAIRPERSON
MARYLOU RENZI M. OLOTEO VICE-CHAIRPERSON
CHRISTINE JOYCE P. ANDRES SECRETARY
KRIZA NIÑA B. MALALUAN ASST. SECRETARY
ELOUISA ANN DC. CARREON HEAD, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
CIARI T. MENDOZA ASST. HEAD, PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
ELISHA ELAINE D. BAYOT HEAD, FINANCE COMMITTEE
JOSEPHINE GRACE W. ANG HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS COMMITTEE
PATRICIA MAE D. GUILLERMO ASST. HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS COMMITTEE
RAFAEL JEROME M. MENDOZA ASST. HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS COMMITTEE
KHYNA MATHEA N. CANLAS ASST. HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS, COMMITTEE
MARSHAN DEINN S. GUALBERTO ASST. HEAD, HOTEL ACCOMODATIONS, COMMITTEE
KIER JOHN V. UY LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
GLENN MATTHEW C. MANLAPID LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
VAN ANGELO K. RESPICIO LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
JAMES ROSS L. TAN LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
LOUELL JUDE B. QUE LOGISTICS COMMITTEE
MON FRANCIS A. TOLENTINO SENIOR MEMBER
CLARA LOUISSE J. YUMANG SENIOR MEMBER
JOCHRIS DANIEL Z. GUADES SENIOR MEMBER
JERREMIAH KRIZIAH B. BATALLER SENIOR MEMBER
ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

ADVISER
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
EDREA JEAN V. RAMIREZ SECRETARY GENERAL
AYA DOMINIQUE S. CAPARAS ASST. SECRETARY GENERAL
ARIANNA LAINE T. SARMIENTO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
BELLE COLLEEN T. DE LEON EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
PAMELA NICOLE S. MANALO EXECUTIVE COMMITTE
RUTH MAE G. SANVICTORES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
LAURISSE MARIE T. PERIANES LAYOUT ARTIST
CIARI T. MENDOZA COVER DESIGN ARTIST
POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

JAYSON GABRIEL R. SORIANO
POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE HEAD
SARA D. LARCE POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD

KIMBERLY S. GUILLERMO
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD
ROCHELLE NIEVA D. CURIBA PUBLIC CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD
JULIE ANN C. MANGUIAT LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD
LAUREN STAR A. BORROMEO
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMITTEE ASST.
HEAD
MEMBERS
MA. SHEMEDA P. CARO MAECY JEAN L. PALAD
CJ DELA CRUZ GABRIEL THADEUS S. PELAGIO
AIREI KIM P. GUANGA DHEN-DHEN G. RAMOS
MARIA FRANCES FAYE R. GUTIERREZ STEPHANIE BRIANNE C. SALIBA
ATTY. AL CONRAB B. ESPALDON

Adviser
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
ACADEMIC OFFICIALS
ATTY. NILO T. DIVINA REV. FR. ISIDRO C. ABAÑO, O.P.

DEAN REGENT
ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

FACULTY SECRETARY
ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

LEGAL COUNSEL
UST CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTO CONCEPCION LEGAL AID CLINIC
JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

SWDB COORDINATOR
LENY G. GADANIA, R.G.C.

GUIDANCE COUNSELOR
OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR
MENTORS AND INSPIRATION
Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier
Justice Oswaldo D.
Agcaoili Judge Charito M.
Sawali Atty. Carlo L. Cruz
Atty. Enrique V. Dela Cruz
Atty. Rene B. Gorospe
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon
Atty. Rafaelito M. Garayblas
Atty. Anicia C. Marquez
Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval
Atty. Mauricio C. Ulep
For being our guideposts in understanding the intricate sphere of Political Law.
-Academics Committee 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Preliminary Provisions and Basic Concepts...............................................................................................................1
A. National Territory.....................................................................................................................................................1
1. Archipelagic doctrine 1
B. Declaration of principles and state policies.....................................................................................................2
C. Separation of powers.............................................................................................................................................10
D. Checks and balances..............................................................................................................................................12
E. State immunity 13
II. Legislative Department..................................................................................................................................................19

A. Legislative Power 19
B. Principle of Non-Delegability..............................................................................................................................19
C. Houses of Congress.................................................................................................................................................20
D. District Representatives and Questions of Apportionment.....................................................................22
E. Party-List System 24
F. Legislative Privileges, Inhibitions and Disqualifications..........................................................................28
G. Discipline of Members...........................................................................................................................................30
H. Process of Law Making..........................................................................................................................................31
I. Quorum and Voting Majorities............................................................................................................................34
J. Appropriation and Re-Alignment.......................................................................................................................36
K. Legislative Inquiries and Oversight Functions.............................................................................................39
L. Power of Impeachment..........................................................................................................................................44
M. Electoral Tribunals................................................................................................................................................46
N. Commission on Appointments...........................................................................................................................49
O. Initiative and Referendum...................................................................................................................................50
III. Executive Department...................................................................................................................................................53

A. Qualifications, Election and Term of the President and Vice-President..............................................53
B. Privileges, Inhibitions and Disqualifications................................................................................................54
C. Powers of the President........................................................................................................................................59
1. Executive and administrative powers in general.................................................................................................. 59
2. Power of appointment 60
a. Confirmation and by-passed appointments.................................................................................................. 61
b. Ad interim appointments 61
c. Midnight appointments 63
d. Power of removal 64
3. Power of control and supervision............................................................................................................................... 65
a. Doctrine of qualified political agency.............................................................................................................. 66
b. Executive departments and offices................................................................................................................... 67
c. Local government units 67
4. Military powers 68
5. Executive clemency 72
6. Powers pertinent to foreign relations........................................................................................................................ 76
D. Rules on Succession................................................................................................................................................77
IV. Judicial Department.......................................................................................................................................................80

A. Concepts 80
1. Judicial power...................................................................................................................................................................... 80
2. Judicial review..................................................................................................................................................................... 80
a. Requisites of judicial review.................................................................................................................................. 80
b. Political Question Doctrine.................................................................................................................................... 83
c. Moot questions............................................................................................................................................................ 84
d. Operative Fact Doctrine.......................................................................................................................................... 85
B. Safeguards of Judicial independence...............................................................................................................85
C. Judicial and Bar Council........................................................................................................................................87
a. Composition of JBC............................................................................................................................................................ 87
b. Powers of JBC....................................................................................................................................................................... 87
D. Fiscal Autonomy......................................................................................................................................................88
E. Qualifications of Members of the Judiciary....................................................................................................88
F. Workings of the Supreme Court.........................................................................................................................90
1. En banc decisions............................................................................................................................................................... 90
2. Procedural rule-making................................................................................................................................................... 91
3. Administrative supervision over lower courts....................................................................................................... 92
4. Original and appellate jurisdiction.............................................................................................................................. 92
V. Constitutional Commissions.........................................................................................................................................93
A. Common Provisions................................................................................................................................................93
B. Powers and functions of the CSC, COMELEC and COA.................................................................................94
C. Composition and Qualifications of Members.................................................................................................94
D. Prohibited Offices and Interests........................................................................................................................97
E. Review of final orders, resolutions and decisions.......................................................................................97
1. Rendered in the exercise of quasi-judicial functions............................................................................................ 97
2. Rendered in the exercise of administrative functions.......................................................................................... 97
F. Jurisdiction of Each Constitutional Commission..........................................................................................98
VI. Bill of Rights....................................................................................................................................................................100

A. Fundamental powers of the state (police power, eminent domain, taxation)................................100
B. Private acts and the Bill of Rights...................................................................................................................108
C. Rights to life, liberty & property......................................................................................................................108
1. Procedural and substantive due process............................................................................................................... 109
2. Constitutional and statutory due process.............................................................................................................. 111
3. Void-for-vagueness doctrine....................................................................................................................................... 113
4. Hierarchy of rights.......................................................................................................................................................... 114
D. Equal protection....................................................................................................................................................115
1. Requisites for valid classification.............................................................................................................................. 115
2. Rational basis, strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny test....................................................................... 116
E. Searches and seizures.........................................................................................................................................117
1. Requisites for a valid warrant.................................................................................................................................... 118
2. Warrantless searches and seizures.......................................................................................................................... 121
3. Administrative arrests................................................................................................................................................... 125
4. Evidence obtained through purely mechanical act............................................................................................ 126
F. Privacy of communications and correspondence......................................................................................127
1. Private and public communications......................................................................................................................... 127
2. Intrusion, when allowed; exclusionary rule......................................................................................................... 127
G. Freedom of speech and expression................................................................................................................131
1. Prior restraint and subsequent punishment........................................................................................................ 133
2. Content-based and content-neutral regulations................................................................................................. 136
3. Facial challenges and the overbreadth doctrine................................................................................................. 136
4. Dangerous tendency, balancing of interests, and clear and present danger test................................... 138
5. State regulation of different types of mass media.............................................................................................. 138
6. Commercial speech 140
7. Unprotected speech 141
H. Freedom of religion.............................................................................................................................................141
1. Non-establishment clause and free exercise clauses........................................................................................ 141
2. Benevolent neutrality and conscientious objectors........................................................................................... 143
3. Lemon and compelling state interest...................................................................................................................... 145
I. Liberty of abode and right to travel.................................................................................................................146
1. Scope and limitations 146
2. Watch-list and hold departure orders..................................................................................................................... 147
J. Right to information..............................................................................................................................................148
1. Scope and limitations 149
2. Publication of laws and regulations......................................................................................................................... 150
3. Non-impairment of contracts..................................................................................................................................... 150
K. Free access to courts and adequate legal assistance................................................................................151
L. Miranda/custodial investigation rights........................................................................................................152
M. Rights of the accused.......................................................................................................................................... 155
N. Right to speedy disposition of cases..............................................................................................................155
O. Right against self-incrimination......................................................................................................................156
P. Right against double jeopardy......................................................................................................................... 157
Q. Involuntary servitude.........................................................................................................................................160
R. Right against excessive fines and cruel and inhuman punishments..................................................160
S. Non-imprisonment for debts.............................................................................................................................161
T. Ex-post facto law and bill of attainder...........................................................................................................161
U. Writs of Habeas Corpus, Kalikasan, Habeas Data, and Amparo...........................................................162
VII. Citizenship 168

A. Who are Filipino citizens................................................................................................................................... 168
B. Modes of acquiring citizenship........................................................................................................................168
C. Loss and re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship.....................................................................................168
D. Dual citizenship and dual allegiance.............................................................................................................170
E. Foundlings...............................................................................................................................................................170
VIII. Law on Public Officers..............................................................................................................................................172

A. General principles................................................................................................................................................172
B. Modes of acquiring title to public office........................................................................................................174
C. Kinds of appointment..........................................................................................................................................174
D. Eligibility and qualification requirements..................................................................................................179
E. Disabilities and inhibitions of public officers.............................................................................................180
F. Rights and liabilities of public officers..........................................................................................................184
G. De facto v. de jure officers...................................................................................................................................186
H. Termination of official relation.......................................................................................................................188
I. The Civil Service 191
J. Personnel actions 197
K. Accountability of public officers......................................................................................................................197
1. Discipline 197
2. Grounds 197
3. Jurisdiction 199
L. Dismissal, preventive suspension, reinstatement and back salaries.................................................200
1. Condonation doctrine 202
2. Impeachment.................................................................................................................................................................... 203
3. The Ombudsman.............................................................................................................................................................. 205
a. Functions.................................................................................................................................................................. 205
b. Judicial review in administrative proceedings.......................................................................................... 209
c. Judicial review in penal proceedings............................................................................................................. 209
4. Office of the Special Prosecutor................................................................................................................................. 209
5. The Sandiganbayan......................................................................................................................................................... 210
IX. Administrative Law......................................................................................................................................................213

A. General principles................................................................................................................................................213
B. Powers of administrative agencies.................................................................................................................214
1. Quasi-legislative (rule-making) power................................................................................................................... 214
a. Kinds of administrative rules and regulations.......................................................................................... 216
b. Requisites for validity......................................................................................................................................... 216
2. Quasi-judicial (adjudicatory) power........................................................................................................................ 217
a. Administrative due process.............................................................................................................................. 218
b. Administrative appeal and review................................................................................................................. 219
c. Administrative res judicata...................................................................................................................................... 220
3. Fact-finding, investigative, licensing and rate-fixing powers........................................................................ 220
C. Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies.............................222
X. Election Law.....................................................................................................................................................................227
A. Suffrage.....................................................................................................................................................................227
B. Qualification and disqualification of voters................................................................................................228
C. Registration of voters..........................................................................................................................................229
D. Inclusion and exclusion proceedings............................................................................................................230
E. Detainee voting......................................................................................................................................................232
F. Candidacy.................................................................................................................................................................232
1. Qualifications and disqualifications of candidates............................................................................................. 232
2. Filing of certificates of candidacy.............................................................................................................................. 234
a. Effect of filing............................................................................................................................................................ 234
b. Substitution of candidates................................................................................................................................... 235
c. Nuisance candidates............................................................................................................................................... 236
d. Ministerial duty of COMELEC to receive certificates................................................................................ 237
G. Remedies and jurisdiction in election law...................................................................................................237
1. Petition not to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy...................................................... 237
2. Petition for disqualification......................................................................................................................................... 237
3. Failure of election, call of special election............................................................................................................. 239
4. Pre-proclamation controversy................................................................................................................................... 240
5. Election protest................................................................................................................................................................ 242
6. Quo warranto............................................................................................................................................................................. 244
XI. Local Governments.......................................................................................................................................................246

A. Principles of local autonomy............................................................................................................................246
1. Autonomous regions and their relation to the national government......................................................... 247
B. Local government units powers......................................................................................................................248
1. Police power (general welfare clause).................................................................................................................... 248
2. Eminent domain............................................................................................................................................................... 254
3. Taxing power.................................................................................................................................................................... 258
4. Legislative power............................................................................................................................................................ 263
a. Requisites for valid ordinance.................................................................................................................................... 265
b. Local initiative and referendum................................................................................................................................ 267
5. Ultra vires acts.................................................................................................................................................................. 268
7. Liability................................................................................................................................................................................ 269
8. Settlement of boundary disputes.............................................................................................................................. 272
9. Vacancies and succession............................................................................................................................................. 273
10. Discipline of local officials......................................................................................................................................... 298
11. Recall................................................................................................................................................................................. 276
12. Term limits...................................................................................................................................................................... 279
Xll. National Economy and Patrimony.........................................................................................................................281

A. Regalian doctrine 281
B. Nationalist and citizenship requirement provisions...............................................................................282
C. Exploration, development and utilization of natural resources..........................................................283
D. Franchises, authority and certificates for public utilities......................................................................285
E. Acquisition, ownership and transfer of public and private lands.......................................................286
F. Practice of professions........................................................................................................................................288
G. Organization and regulation of corporations, private and public......................................................289
H. Monopolies, restraint of trade and unfair competition..........................................................................289
XIII. Social Justice and Human Rights..........................................................................................................................291

A. Concept of social justice.....................................................................................................................................291
B. Economic, social and cultural rights..............................................................................................................292
C. Commission on Human Rights..........................................................................................................................293
XV. Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports............................................................................294

A. Academic freedom................................................................................................................................................294
XVI. The Family 298

A. Rights........................................................................................................................................................................ 298
XVII. Amendments or Revisions of the Constitution...............................................................................................298

A. Procedure to amend or revise the Constitution.........................................................................................298
XVIII. Public International Law......................................................................................................................................303

A. Fundamental Concepts.......................................................................................................................................303
1. Obligations erga omnes........................................................................................................................................................ 303
2. Jus cogens 303
3. Concept of ex aequo et bono............................................................................................................................................... 304
B. Relationship between international and national law............................................................................304
C. Sources of obligation in international law...................................................................................................306
F. Subjects 309
G. States 311
H. International organizations..............................................................................................................................317
I. Individuals 318
J. Jurisdiction of states.............................................................................................................................................319
1. Basis of jurisdiction 319
a. Territoriality principle 320
b. Nationality principle 320
c. Statelessness 320
d. Protective principle 321
e. Universality principle 321
f. Passive personality principle............................................................................................................................ 322
2. Exemptions from jurisdiction..................................................................................................................................... 322
a. Acts of state doctrine........................................................................................................................................... 322
3. International organizations and its officers.......................................................................................................... 322
K. General Principles of Treaty Law....................................................................................................................328
1. Doctrine of state responsibility.................................................................................................................................. 335
1. Refugees 337
2. Extradition......................................................................................................................................................................... 337
L. Basic principles of international human rights law.................................................................................340
M. Basic principles of international humanitarian law................................................................................343
1. Categories of armed conflicts..................................................................................................................................... 345
a. International armed conflicts........................................................................................................................... 346
b. Internal or non-international armed conflict............................................................................................ 346
c. War of national liberation.................................................................................................................................. 347
2. R.A. 9851 (Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and
Other Crimes Against Humanity).............................................................................................................................. 350
M. Law of the sea........................................................................................................................................................357
1. Baselines 357
2. Archipelagic states.......................................................................................................................................................... 358
3. Internal waters................................................................................................................................................................. 361
4. Territorial sea................................................................................................................................................................... 361
5. Contiguous zone............................................................................................................................................................... 364
6. Exclusive economic zone.............................................................................................................................................. 365
7. Continental shelf.............................................................................................................................................................. 366
8. Extended continental shelf.......................................................................................................................................... 367
9. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea...................................................................................................... 374
N. Basic principles of international environmental law..............................................................................379
1. Precautionary principle................................................................................................................................................ 380
DISCLAIMER
THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

REVIEW MATERIAL SHALL BE
BORNE BY THE USER
PRElIMInARy PROvISIOns A Nd BASIC ConcePts
William correct? (2009 Bar)
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
AND BASIC CONCEPTS
Political Law
Branch of public law that deals with the

organization and operations of the governmental
organs of the State and defines its relations with
the inhabitants of the territory. (People v.
Perfecto,
G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, 1922)
Scope of Political Law
1. Political Law
2. Constitutional Law
3. Administrative Law
4. Law on Municipal Corporations
5. Law on Public Officers
6. Election laws
7. Public International Law
NATIONAL TERRITORY
Composition of the Philippine Territory
The national territory comprises the Philippine

archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over
which the Philippines has sovereignty or
jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial
and aerial domains, including its territorial sea,
the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas. The waters around,
between, and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of
the Philippines. (Art. I, 1987 Constitution)
Q: William, a private American citizen and

frequent visitor to the Philippines, was inside
the U.S. embassy when he got into a heated
argument with a private Filipino citizen. Then,
in front of many shocked witnesses, he killed
the person he was arguing with. The police
came and brought him to the nearest police
station. Upon reaching the station, the police
investigator, in halting English, informed
William of his Miranda rights, and assigned
him an independent local counsel. William
protested his arrest. He argued that since the
incident took place inside the U.S. embassy,
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction because
the U.S. embassy grounds are not part of
Philippine territory; thus, technically, no
crime under Philippine law was committed. Is
1
POLITICAL LAW
it, there would be provisions of this
A: NO. William is not correct. The premises occupied “pockets of high Convention applicable to
by the United States Embassy do not constitute seas” between some other land territory. Rocks
territory of the United States but of the Philippines. of our islands and which cannot sustain
Crimes committed within them are subject to the islets, thus foreign human habitation or
territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines. Since vessels would be economic life of their own
William has no diplomatic immunity, the Philippines able to pass through shall have no exclusive
can prosecute him if it acquires custody over him. these “pockets of economic zone or
(UPLC Suggested Answers) seas” and would continental shelf.
have no jurisdiction
NOTE: Foreign embassies retain their status as native over it. Spratlys Group of Islands
soil. They are still subject to Philippine authority. Its (SGI) is not part of the
jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not Effect of RA 9522 Philippine Archipelago
disappear. So, it is with the bases under lease to the “Archipelagic because it is too far to be
American armed forces by the military base’s Baselines Law” on included within the
agreement of 1947. They are not and cannot be our sovereignty archipelagic lines encircling
considered as foreign territory. over our national the internal waters of
territory Philippine Archipelago. The
Also, if an attaché commits an offense within the SGI, however, is part of the
precincts of an embassy, his immunity from RA 9522 amends RA Philippine territory
prosecution is not because he has not violated the 3046, which defines because it was discovered
local law, but rather because the individual is exempt the baselines of the by a Filipino seaman in the
from prosecution. If a person not so exempt, or territorial sea of the name of Tomas Cloma who
whose immunity is waived, similarly commits a crime Philippines. The later renounced his claim
therein, the territorial sovereign, if it secures custody Kalayaan Island over it in favor of the
of the offender, may subject him to prosecution. It is Group as constituted Republic of the Philippines.
not believed, therefore, that an ambassador himself under PD 1596 and Subsequently, then Pres.
possesses the right to exercise jurisdiction, contrary Bajo de Masinloc, Marcos issued a
to the will of the State of his sojourn, even within his also known as Presidential Decree
embassy with respect to acts there committed. Nor is Scarborough Shoal is constituting SGI as part of
there apparent at the present time any tendency on determined as the Philippine territory and
the part of States to acquiesce in his exercise of it. “Regime of Islands” sending some of our armed
(William C. Reagan v. CIR, G.R. No. L-26379, December under the Republic forces to protect said island
27, 1969) of the Philippines and maintain our
consistent with Art. sovereignty over it.
Archipelagic Doctrine 121 of the United
Nations Convention SGI and Scarborough
The waters around, between, and connecting the on the Law of the Shoal as part of the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth Sea which states: National Territory
and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of
the Philippines. An island is a The SGI and Scarborough
naturally formed Shoal fall under the 2nd
Under the Archipelagic Doctrine, we connect the area of land, phrase of Art. II, i.e. “and all
outermost points of our archipelago with straight surrounded by other territories over which
baselines and consider all the waters enclosed water, which is the Philippines has
thereby as internal waters. The entire archipelago is above water at high sovereignty or jurisdiction.”
regarded as one integrated unit instead of being tide. It is part of our national
fragmented into so many thousand islands. (Cruz and territory because the
Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 24) Except as provided Philippines exercise
for in par. 3, the sovereignty (through
Purposes of the Archipelagic Doctrine territorial sea, the election of public officials)
contiguous zone, the over the Spratly Group of
1. Territorial Integrity exclusive economic Islands. Moreover, under
2. National Security zone and the the
3. Economic reasons continental shelf of
an island are
NOTE: The main is to protect the territorial determined in
purpose of the interests of an archipelago, its accordance with the
archipelagic doctrine territorial integrity. Without
U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 2

2 0 1 9 G OLDENN OTES
Philippi the executive 2004)
ne branch or NOTE: The
Baseline entered into by Manifestations of Philippines is
s Law of private persons Republicanism not only a
2009 for private representativ
(RA purposes, is 1.
O e or
9522), null and void ur republican
the and without s state but also
Spratly any force and is shares some
Islands effect. Since the a aspects of
and the Constitution is go direct
Scarbor the ve democracy
ough fundamental, rn that accords
Shoal paramount and m to the
are supreme law of en citizens a
classifie the nation, it is t greater
d as deemed written of participation
islands in every statute la in the affairs
under and contract. w of the
the (Manila Prince s government
regime Hotel v GSIS, an such people’s
of the G.R. No. d as initiative
Republic 122156, no and
of the February 3, t referendum,
Philippi 1997) of the right to
nes. m information
(Philippi Republican State (1996 Bar) en on matters of
ne . public
Baseline The Philippines 2. Rule of concern etc.
s Law of is a democratic Majority
2009) and republican (Plurality in Constitutional
State. elections) Authoritarianism
Sovereignty DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
Doctrine of resides in the POLICIES
Constitutional people and all 3. Accountabili
Supremacy government ty of public As
authority officials understood
Under emanates from 4. Bill of Rights and practiced
this them. (Sec. 1, 5. Legislature in the Marcos
doctrine Art. II, 1987 cannot pass regime under
, if a law Constitution) irrepealable the 1973
or laws constitution,
contract A state wherein 6. Separation it is the
violates all government of powers assumption
any authority
norm of emanates from of extraordinary m with a
the the people and powers by the republican
Constitu is exercised by President state
tion, representatives including
that law chosen by the legislative and Constitutional
or people. judicial and authoritarianis
contract, (Dissenting even constituent m is
whether Opinion of powers. compatible
promulg Justice Puno, with a
ated by Tolentino v. Compatibility republican
the COMELEC, G.R. state if the
legislati No. 148334, constitutional Constitution
ve or by January 21, authoritarianis upon which
3
POLITICAL LAW
the Executive existence of war
bases his and enact All existing treaties working
assumption of measures to or international conditions,
power is a support it, the agreements which taking into
legitimate actual power to have not been account their
expression of the engage in war is ratified shall not be maternal
people’s will and lodged, renewed or functions, and
if the Executive nonetheless, in extended without such facilities
who assumes the executive. the concurrence of and
power received at least two-thirds opportunities
his office through Independent of all the Members that will
a valid election by Foreign Policy of the Senate. (Sec. enhance their
the people. and a nuclear- 4, Art. XVIII, 1987 welfare and
free Constitution) enable them
State policy on Philippines to realize
war After the expiration their full
The State shall in 1991 of the potential in
The State pursue an Agreement the service of
renounces war as independent between the the nation."
an instrument of foreign policy. In Republic of the
national policy. its relations with Philippines and the 2. Ecology –
(Sec. 2, Art. II, other states, the United States of 1987
1987 paramount America Constitution,
Constitution) consideration concerning military Sec. 16, Art. II:
shall be national bases, foreign “The State
NOTE: The sovereignty, military bases, shall protect
Philippines does territorial troops, or facilities and advance
not renounce integrity, shall not be the right of
defensive war national allowed in the the people
because it is duty interest, and the Philippines except and their
bound to defend right to self- under a treaty duly posterity to a
its citizens. Under determination. concurred in by the balanced and
the Constitution, (Sec. 7, Art. 2, Senate and, when healthful
the prime duty of 1987 the Congress so ecology in
the government is Constitution) requires, ratified by accord with
to serve and a majority of the the rhythm
protect the The Philippines, votes cast by the and harmony
people. consistent with people in a national of nature."
the national referendum held
Voting interest, adopts for that purpose, Q: The residents
requirements to and pursues a and recognized as a of Taguig City
declare the policy of treaty by the other brought a
existence of a freedom from contracting State. complaint
state of war nuclear weapons (Sec. 25, Art. XVIII, before Laguna
in its territory. 1987 Constitution) Lake
1. 2/3 vote (Sec. 8, Art. II, Development
of both 1987 Policies of the State Authority
Houses Constitution) on the following: (LLDA) about an
2. In joint open garbage
session NOTE: This 1. Working dumpsite in
3. Voting pertains to use women – 1987 their city and
separatel of nuclear Constitution, sought its
y weapons and Sec. 14, Art. closure due to
not nuclear XIII: "The State its harmful
NOTE: Even source of shall protect effects on health
though the energy. working and the
legislature can women by pollution it
declare an providing safe brings to the
and healthful lake. Upon
investigation, LLDA operations. Then, Lands of
discovered that the LLDA, under RA Indigenous Develop
Taguig City 4850, issued a Communities. ment of
Government has “cease and desist” (1987 national
been maintaining order against the Constitution, Art. talents
the said dumpsite City Government XII, Sec. 5) consistin
without an to completely stop g of
Environmental the dumping of Application of Filipino scientists,
Compliance any form or kind Principles of entrepre
of waste matter to Agrarian Reform neurs,
Certificate the dumpsite. and Stewardship professio
Does the LLDA to Indigenous nals,
from the have the power Communities manager
Environmental and authority to and Landless s, high-
Management issue a “cease and Farmers. (1987 level
Bureau of the DENR, desist” order Constitution, Art. technical
and also found the under RA 4850 XIII, Sec. 65) manpow
water to have been enjoining the er and
directly dumping of Preservation skilled
contaminated by garbage in Taguig and workers
the dumpsite City? Development of and
the Culture, craftsme
A: YES. In the exercise, carries the correlative duty of Traditions, and n. (1987
therefore, of its non-impairment. Hence, the Institutions of Constitut
express powers under issuance of the cease and Indigenous ion, Art.
its charter as a desist order by the LLDA is a Communities. XII, Sec.
regulatory and quasi- proper exercise of its power (1987 14)
judicial body with and authority under its Constitution, Art.
respect to pollution charter and in consonance XIV, Sec. 17) Mandate
cases in the Laguna with the declared policy of on
Lake region, the the state to protect and 5. Science and educatio
authority of the LLDA promote the right to health of technology – nal
to issue a “cease and the people and instill health Priority to institutio
desist” order is consciousness among them. Education, ns. [1987
implied and need not (Laguna Lake Development Science and Constitut
necessarily be Authority v. CA, G.R. No. Technology, ion, Art.
express. Moreover, the 110120, March 16, 1994) Arts, Culture, XIV, Sec.
immediate response and Sports. 3(4)]
to the demands of "the 3. The symbols of statehood (1987
necessities of – Flag of the Philippines. Constitution, Art. Priority
protecting vital public (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 17) to
interests" gives XVI, Sec. 1) (1992, 1994 research
vitality to the Bar) and
statement on ecology Name of the country, develop
embodied in Art. II, National Anthem, and ment,
Sec. 16 of the National Seal. (1987 invention
Constitution which Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. ,
provides: The State 2) innovatio
shall protect and n of
advance the right of 4. Cultural minorities – science
the people to a Recognition and and
balanced and healthful Promotion of Rights of technolo
ecology in accord with Indigenous Cultural gy. (1987
the rhythm and Communities. (1987 Constitut
harmony of nature. As Constitution, Art. II, Sec. ion, Art.
a constitutionally 22) (1994, 1996 Bar) XIV, Sec.
guaranteed right of 10)
every person, it Protection of Ancestral
Incentive
5
POLITICAL LAW
s, groups, o Stateme
tax local f nt of
ded governmen t Assets,
ucti ts, and h Liabiliti
ons, organizatio e es, and
and ns in the C Net
sch generation o worth.
olar and n (1987
ship utilization g Constitu
s to of science r tion,
enc and e Art. XI,
our technology. s Sec. 17)
age (1987 s. 5. Access
priv Constitutio ( to
ate n, Art. XIV, 1 informa
part Sec. 12) 9 tion on
icip 8 foreign
atio Constitutional 7 loans
n in provision on C obtaine
pro transparency o d or
gra in matters of n guarant
ms public s eed by
of concern (2000 ti the
basi Bar) t govern
c u ment.
and The 1987 ti (1987
appl Constitution o Constitu
ied provides for a n tion,
scie policy of , Art. XII,
ntifi transparency in A Sec. 21)
c matters of r
rese public interest: t. NOTE: These
arch V provisions on
. 1. Policy of I, public
(19 full public S disclosures
87 disclosure e are intended
Con of c. to enhance
stit governme 2 the role of
utio nt 0 the citizenry
n, transactio ) in
Art. ns. (1987 ( governmenta
XIV, Constituti 2 l decision-
Sec. on, Art. II, 0 making as
11) Sec. 28) 0 well as in
2. Right to 0 checking
Enc informatio B abuse in
our n on a government.
age matters of r (Valmonte v.
men public ) Belmonte,
t of concern. 4. S G.R. No.
wid (1987 u 74930,
est Constituti b February 13,
part on, Art. III, m 1989)
icip Sec. 7) is
atio 3. Access to si Right of Parents to Rear
n of the o their Children
priv records n
ate and books o The natural
of account f and primary

right youth for civic public welfare deference to
and efficiency and or the well- the primary
duty of the being of the nature of
parents development of child, the State parental
in the moral may act to authority and
rearing character shall promote these the
of the receive legitimate importance of
interests. Thus, parents' role
the support of the precept and in cases in in child-
Government. (Sec. example is which harm to rearing.
12, Art. II, 1987 essential to the the physical or Parents are
Constitution) growth of young mental health of
people into the child or to
NOTE: The mature, socially public safety,
rearing of responsible peace, order, or
children (i.e., citizens." welfare is
referred to as the (SPARK, Et. al. demonstrated,
"youth") for civic vs. Quezon City, these legitimate
efficiency and the GR No. 225442, state interests
development of August 08, 2017) may override
their moral the parents'
character are Q: Three cities qualified right
characterized not in Metro to control the
only as parental Manila passed upbringing of
rights, but also as ordinances that their children.
parental duties. impose curfew
This means that on minors in As our
parents are not their Constitution
only given the respective itself provides,
privilege of jurisdictions. the State is
exercising their Petitioners mandated to
authority over argue that the support parents
their children; Curfew in the exercise
they are equally Ordinances are of these rights
obliged to unconstitution and duties. State
exercise this al because they authority is,
authority deprive therefore, not
conscientiously. parents of their exclusive of, but
For indeed, it is natural and rather,
during childhood primary right complementary
that minors are in rearing the to parental
prepared for youth without supervision.
additional substantive
obligations to due process. Is It should be
society. "[T]he the petitioners’ emphasized that
duty to prepare contention the Curfew
the child for these proper? Ordinances
[obligations] must apply only when
be read to include A: NO. While the minors are
the inculcation of parents have the not— whether
moral standards, primary role in actually or
religious beliefs, child-rearing, it constructively—
and elements of should be accompanied by
good citizenship." stressed that their parents.
"This affirmative "when actions This serves as
process of concerning the an explicit
teaching, guiding, child have a recognition of
and inspiring by relation to the the State's
7
POLITICAL LAW
effectively given 2. Exclusive; 3. Comprehensive
unfettered authority ;
over their children's
conduct during 4. Absolute; expressly or impliedly as a
curfew hours when 5. Indivisible; member of the family of
they are able to NOTE: The fact that 6. Inalienable; and nations.
supervise them. the international 7. Imprescripti
Thus, in all actuality, law has been made ble. (Laurel The sovereignty of a state
the only aspect of part of the law of v. Misa, G.R. therefore cannot in fact and
parenting that the the land does not by No. L- 409, in reality be considered
Curfew Ordinances any means imply Jan. 30, absolute. Certain
affects is the parents' the primacy of 1947) restrictions enter into the
prerogative to allow international law picture: (1) limitations
minors to remain in over national law in Sovereignty: imposed by the very nature
public places without the municipal Imperium vs. of membership in the
parental sphere. (Philip Dominium family of nations and (2)
accompaniment Morris, Inc. v. CA, limitations imposed by
during the curfew G.R. No. 91332, July BASIS IMPERIUMtreaty stipulations. (Tañada
hours. (SPARK, Et. al. 16, 1993) The v. Angara, G.R. No. 118295,
vs. Quezon City, GR authority May 2, 1997)
No. 225442, August 8, Sovereignty govern
2017) embraced in Principle of Non-
Supreme and concept Intervention
Incorporation Clause uncontrollable power sovereignty;
inherent in a State by includes The United Nations has
Definitio repeatedly clarified that
The Philippines which the State is passing
n and
adopts the generally governed. governing states are strictly
Extent prohibited from
accepted principles territory,
of international law Characteristics of maintaining intervening in the domestic
as part of the law of Sovereignty peace and affairs of other states, most
the land. (1987 over it, famously in Article 2.4 of
Constitution, Art. II, 1. Permanent; defeating the UN Charter, which
Sec. 2) (See against foreignprohibits the threat or use
discussion under invasion. of force against the
Public International (Lee Hong Hok v. territorial integrity or
Law) David, G.R. No. L- political independence of
30389, Dec. 27, 1972) another state. The non-
Doctrine of intervention principle,
Incorporation vs. NOTE: Sovereignty is however, is
Doctrine of deemed absolute,
Transformation subject to
restrictions and
limitations.
DOCTRINE OF
BASIS
INCORPORATION Doctrine of Auto
Generally Limitation
accepted
principles While sovereignty
International Law has traditionally
form part of the been deemed
law of the land; absolute and all-
legislative action encompassing on the
is required domestic level, it is
Definition make however subject to
applicable restrictions and
country. limitations
voluntarily agreed to
by the Philippines,

not from directly or State esident,
simply indirectly “to the
restricte intervening “in interve highest
d to the internal or ne, civilian
situatio external affairs directl authorit
ns of other States.” y or y, as the
involvin The Court went indirec comman
g use of on to clarify, tly, der- in-
force, however, that with chief of
acts of for an or all the
aggressi intervention to withou armed
on, or be prohibited, it t forces of
armed must impinge armed the
conflict. on matters that force, Philippi
It has are directly in nes.
been within a state’s suppor (1987
further sovereign t of the Constitu
clarified rights. These intern tion,
by the include the al Art. VII,
Internat choice of a opposi Sec. 18)
ional political, tion
Court of economic, or within 2. Through
Justice social and a the
to cultural system State.” require
include and the ment
the creation and Consti that
concept formulation of tution member
that a foreign policy. al s of the
state An intervention provis AFP
cannot is, therefore, ions swear to
interven “wrongful when which uphold
e in a it uses methods ensur and
dictatori of coercion in e defend
al way regard to such civilia the
in the choices, which n Constitu
internal must remain supre tion,
affairs of free ones” macy which is
another unmarked by the
state. any evidence of 1. B fundam
coercion which y ental
Within would be t law of a
the evidence of a h civil
Nicarag prohibited e govern
ua intervention. In i ment.
Decision Democratic n (1987
, the ICJ Republic of the st Constitu
declared Congo v. al tion,
that the Uganda, the la Art. XVI,
principl Court affirmed ti Sec. 5,
e that the o Par. 1)
precisel Nicaragua n
y forbids Decision had o NOTE: By
all “made it clear f civilian
States that the t supremacy, it
(or principle of h is meant that
groups non- e civilian
of intervention P authority is,
States) prohibits a r at all times,
9
POLITICAL LAW
supreme One cannot rights.” “Register,
over the avoid after
military. compulsory 2. Art. VI, Sec. sufficient
(2003, military service 5[2]: “The publicati
2006, by invoking party-list on,
2009 one’s religious representa political
Bar) convictions or tives shall parties,
by saying that constitute organizat
Mandat he has a sick twenty per ions, or
ory father and centum of coalitions
renditi several the total which, in
on of brothers and number of addition
military sisters to representa to other
service support. tives requirem
s to Accordingly, including ents,
defend the duty of those must
the government to under the present
State defend the party list. their
State cannot be For three platform
consecutiv or
performed except Church and e terms program
through an army. State: after the of
To leave the ratification governm
organization of an 1. Art. III, Sec. of this ent; and
army to the will of 5: “No law Constitutio accredit
the citizens would shall be n, one-half citizens'
be to make this made of the arms of
duty to the respecting allocated the
Government an to party- Commissi
excusable should establishm list on on
there be no ent of representa Elections.
sufficient men religion, or tives shall Religious
who volunteer to prohibiting be filled, as denomin
enlist therein. The the free provided ations
right of the exercise by law, by and sects
Government to thereof. selection shall not
require The free or election be
compulsory exercise from the registere
military service is and labor, d. Those
a consequence of enjoyment peasant, which
its duty to defend of religious urban seek to
the State and is profession poor, achieve
reciprocal with its and indigenous their
duty to defend the worship, cultural goals
life, liberty, and without communiti through
property of the discriminat es, women, violence
citizen. (People v. ion or youth, and or
Zosa, G.R. No. L- preference, such other unlawful
45892-93, July 13, shall sections as means, or
1938) forever be may be refuse to
allowed. provided uphold
Separation of No by law, and
Church and State religious except the adhere to
test shall religious this
Provisions of the be required sector. Constituti
Constitution that for the on, or
support the exercise of 3. Art. IX-CI, which are
principle of civil or Sec. 2[5]: supporte
separation of political
d by any the use, wards
foreign be an benefit, or belong,
government additional support of any without
shall ground for the sect, church, additional
likewise be cancellation of denomination, cost to the
refused their sectarian Government.
registration. registration institution, or ”
Financial with the system of
contribution Commission, religion, or of 4. Art. XIV, Sec.
s from in addition to any priest, 4[2]:
foreign other preacher, “Educational
governments penalties that minister, or institutions,
and their may be other religious other than
agencies to prescribed by teacher, or those
political law.” dignitary as established
parties, such, except by religious
organization XPNs to the when such groups and
s, coalitions, principle are the priest, mission
or following preacher, boards, shall
candidates provisions of the minister, or be owned
related to Constitution: dignitary is solely by
elections, assigned to citizens of
constitute 1. Art. VI, Sec. the armed the
interference 28[3]: forces, or to Philippines
in national “Charitable any penal or
affairs, and, institutions, institution, or corporations
when churches and government or
accepted, parsonages or orphanage or associations
shall convents leprosarium.” at least sixty
appurtenant (1992, 1997 per centum
thereto, Bar) of the capital
mosques, non- of which is
profit 3. Art. XIV, Sec. owned by
cemeteries, 3[3]: “At the such citizens.
and all lands, option The
buildings, and expressed in Congress
improvements, writing by the may,
actually, parents or however,
directly, and guardians, require
exclusively religion shall increased
used for be allowed to Filipino
religious, be taught to equity
charitable, or their children participation
educational or wards in in all
purposes shall public educational
be exempt elementary institutions.”
from taxation.” and high
schools within Theories on
2. Art. VI, Sec. the regular the
29[2]: “No class hours by separation
public money instructors of church
or property designated or and state:
shall be approved by
appropriated, the religious 1. Separation
applied, paid, authorities of Standard -
or employed, the religion to May take the
directly or which the form of either
indirectly, for children or (a) strict
11
POLITICAL LAW
separation or (b) neutrality, or NOTE: Based on the
the tamer what Justice foregoing, and after based on
version of strict holding that the religious
Philippine belief, it shall
Carpio refers accommodation of Constitution upholds adopt the
to as the secular programs to the Benevolent Strict-
second theory religious belief. Neutrality Doctrine Compelling
of governmental which allows for State
neutrality. 2. Benevolent Neutrality accommodation, the interest test
Approach (2016 Bar) – Court laid down the because it is
a. Strict The “wall of separation” rule that in dealing most in line
Separationist is meant to protect the with cases involving with the
– The church from the State. It purely conduct benevolent
establishment believes that with respect neutrality-
clause was to governmental actions, accommodati
meant to accommodation of on.
protect the religion may be allowed,
State from the not to promote the Difference between
church, and government’s favored Mandatory
the State’s form of religion, but to accommodat
hostility allow individuals and ion,
towards groups to exercise their Permissive
religion religion without accommodat
allows no hindrance. (Estrada v. ion and
interaction Escritor, A.M. No. P-02- Prohibited
between the 1651, June 22, 2006) accommodat
two. ion
NOTE: In the Philippine
b. Strict context, the Court MANDATORY PERMISSIVE PROH
Neutrality categorically ruled that, “the ACCOMMODA ACCOMODA ACCO
Approach – It Filipino people, in adopting TION TION T
is not hostility the Constitution, manifested Basis and Action Taken
towards their adherence to the When Means that Resul
religion, but a benevolent neutrality religious the state the c
strict holding approach that requires conscience may, but is no ba
that religion accommodations in conflicts with not mand
may not be interpreting the religion a required to, accom
used as a clauses.” (Estrada v. Escritor, government accommoda on,
basis for ibid.) obligation or te religious deter
classification prohibition, interests. that
for purposes Kinds of accommodation the legisl
of that result from free government accom
governmental exercise claim sometimes on ru
action, may have to of
whether the 1. Mandatory – Those which give way. estab
action confers are found to be This or
rights or constitutionally accommodat exerc
privileges or compelled, i.e. required ion occurs claus
imposes by the Free Exercise when all case,
duties or Clause; three finds
obligations. 2. Permissive – Those which conditions of estab
Only secular are discretionary or the conce
criteria may legislative, i.e. not compelling preva
be the basis of required by the Free state interest poten
government Exercise Clause; and test are met. accom
action. It does 3. Prohibited – Those which on in
not permit; are prohibited by the
much less religion clauses. NOTE: The
require
purpose a Roman denomination, expressly
of Catholic sectarian mandating
accomm Chapel, institution, or that judiciary
odations complete with system of employees
is to offertory religion? attend the
remove table, images Catholic
a of Catholic A: masses at the
burden religious a) NO. Allowing basement.
on, or icons, a the citizens to Second, when
facilitate canopy, an practice their judiciary
the electric organ, religion is not employees
exercise and a equivalent to a attend the
of, a projector. fusion of Church masses to
person’s Valenciano and State. The profess their
or believed that State adopts a faith, it is at
instituti such practice policy of their own
on’s violated the accommodation initiative as
religions constitutional as a recognition they are there
. provision on that some on their own
the separation governmental free will and
Q: In his of Church and measures may volition,
letters State and the not be imposed without any
address constitutional on a certain coercion from
ed to prohibition portion of the the judges or
Chief against the population for administrative
Justice appropriation these measures officers. Third,
Puno, of public are contrary to no
Valenci money or their religious government
ano property for beliefs. As long funds are
reporte the benefit of as it can be being spent
d that a sect, church, shown that the because the
the denomination, exercise of the lightings and
baseme or any other right does not air-
nt of system of impair the conditioning
the Hall religion. public welfare, continue to be
of Valenciano the attempt of operational
Justice also prayed the State to even if there
of that rules be regulate or are no
Quezon promulgated prohibit such religious
City had by the Court to right would be rituals there.
been put a stop to an Fourth, the
convert the unconstitutional basement has
ed into encroachment. neither been
converted into
holding of principle of
The holding of a Roman
Catholic masses, separation of
Catholic masses Catholic chapel
or any other Church and
at the basement nor has it been
religious rituals, State?
of the QC Hall of permanently
at the QC Hall of (b) Was
Justice is merely appropriated
Justice and in all there a
a case of for the
other halls of violation
accommodation. exclusive use
justice in the against
First, there is no of its faithful.
country. appropriation
law, ordinance Fifth, the
of public
or circular allowance of
(a) Does the money or
issued by any the masses has
holding of property for
duly not prejudiced
masses at the QC the benefit of
constitutive other
Hall of Justice any sect,
authorities religions.
violate the church,
13
POLITICAL LAW
19-SC, March 7, be effective.
b) NO. The committed when 2017) These provisions
basement of the the subject would be
QC Hall of Justice basement is Self-executing subordinated to
is not allowed to be provision the will of the
appropriated, temporarily used lawmaking body,
applied or by the Catholics to A provision which which could make
employed for the celebrate mass, as is complete by itself them entirely
sole purpose of the same area can and becomes meaningless by
supporting the be used by other operative without simply refusing to
Roman Catholics. groups of people the aid of pass the needed
and for other supplementary or implementing
The basement is purposes. Thus, the enabling statute. (Manila
also being used as basement of the QC legislation, or that Prince Hotel v.
a public waiting Hall of Justice has which supplies GSIS, G.R. 122156,
area for most of remained to be a sufficient rule by Feb. 3, 1997)
the day and a public property means of which the
meeting place for devoted for public right it grants may XPN:
different use because the be enjoyed or 1. When it is
employee holding of Catholic protected; nature expressly
organizations. The masses therein is a and extent of the provided that a
use of the area for mere incidental right conferred and legislative act is
holding masses is consequence of its the liability necessary to
limited to lunch primary purpose. imposed are fixed enforce a
break period from by the Constitution constitutional
twelve (12) What the law itself. mandate; and
o'clock to one prohibits the use of 2. Provisions
(1) o'clock in the public money or GR: All provisions merely
afternoon. The property for the of the Constitution expressing
masses run for sole purpose of are self- executory. general
just a little over benefiting or principles like:
thirty (30) supporting any Rationale: A a. Art. II:
minutes. It is, church. The contrary rule "Declaration of
therefore, clear prohibition would give the Principles and
that no undue contemplates a legislature State Policies"
religious bias is scenario where the discretion to b. Art. XIII: "Social
being appropriation is determine when, or Justice and
primarily intended whether, they shall Human Rights"
for the furtherance
of a particular c. Art. XIV: of judicial review, and by
church. It does not "Education the legislature in its
inhibit the use of Science and enactment of laws. (Tondo
public property for Technology, Medical Employees
religious purposes Arts, Culture Association v. CA, G.R. No.
when the religious end Sports” 167324, July 17, 2007)
character of such (Manila Prince
use is merely Hotel v. GSIS, XPN to the XPN:
incidental to a G.R. 122156,
temporary use Feb. 3, 1997) 1. Sec. 16, Art. II: Right to a
which is available balanced and healthful
indiscriminately to NOTE: Such ecology (Oposa v.
the public in provisions are not Factoran, G.R. No.
general. (Re: Letter ready for 101083, July 30, 1993)
of Tony Q. enforcement 2. Sec. 17, Art. III: Right to
Valenciano, Holding through the courts information (Manila
of Religious Rituals but are used by the Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R.
at the Hall of Justice judiciary as aids or No. 122156, Feb. 3,
Building in Quezon guides in the 1997); and
City, A.M. No. 10-4- exercise of its power 3. Sec. 10, Art. XII: Filipino

First Policy. (Manila law g, etc, of
Prince Hotel v. GSIS, Plea bargaining in drug cases encroa Dangerous
G.R. No. 122156, Feb. ches on Drugs)
3, 1997) Plea bargaining the involving
operates as a exclusi other kinds of
NOTE: In case of means to ve dangerous
doubt, the provisions implement an constit drugs, except
of the Constitution existing right utional shabu and
should be construed by regulating power marijuana.
as self- executing; the judicial of the
mandatory rather process for Supre Q: A group of
than directory and enforcing rights me losing
prospective rather and duties Court. litigants in a
than retroactive. (Cruz recognized by (Estipi case decided
and Cruz, substantive law na v. by the SC
Constitutional Law, p. and for justly Lobrig filed a
8) administering o, complaint
remedy and G.R.No. before the
redress for a 22667 Ombudsman
disregard or 9, charging the
SEPARATION OF infraction of August Justices with
POWERS them. (Estipina 15, knowingly
v. Lobrigo, 2017) and
Doctrine of G.R.No. 226679, deliberately
Separation of Powers August 15, Exceptions of plea rendering an
2017) bargaining in drug unjust
Legislation belongs to cases decision in
the Congress, The power to utter
implementation to the promulgate 1. Imp violation of
executive, and rules of osable the penal
settlement of legal pleading, penalt laws of the
controversies and practice and y is life land. Can the
adjudication of rights procedure is impris Ombudsman
to the judiciary. Each exclusive onmen validly take
department has domain of the t or life cognizance
exclusive cognizance Judicial impris of the case?
of and is supreme in department and onmen
matters falling within no longer t to A: NO.
its own shared with the death. Pursuant to
constitutionally Executive and 2. Unde the principle
allocated sphere. Each Legislative r of separation
is therefore prevented departments. Section of powers,
from invading the The adoption of 5 of the
domain of the others. the plea Republ correctness
bargaining ic Act of the
Purposes of framework in No. decisions of
Separation of Powers Drug Cases 9165, the SC as final
under Section or the arbiter of all
1. Secure action; 23 of Republic Compr justifiable
2. Forestall over- Act No. 9165, or ehensi disputes is
action; the ve conclusive
3. Prevent Comprehensive Danger upon all other
despotism; and Dangerous ous departments
4. Obtain efficiency. Drugs Act of Drugs of the
2002 is Act of government;
Powers vested in the unconstitutiona 2002, the
three branches of l for the (Sale, Ombudsman
EXECUTIVE LEGISLATIVEinclusion
government of the
JUDICIARY Tradin has no power
provision in the
Interpretation
Implementation
Making of laws of laws
of laws 15
(Power of the (Power of
(Power of the
purse) judicial
sword)
review
POLITICAL LAW
to (In re: Laureta, filed a petition established
review G.R. No. L- for mandamus. that the public
the 68635, May 14, May the prosecutor
decision 1987) respondents be committed
s of the compelled by grave abuse of
SC by Q: May the the writ of discretion, that
entertain RTC or any mandamus to is, when he has
ing a court prohibit charge exercised his
complai a committee of Dalandag as an discretion “in
nt the Senate like accused for an arbitrary,
against the Blue multiple capricious,
the Ribbon murder in whimsical or
Justices Committee relation to the despotic
of the SC from requiring Maguindanao manner by
for a person to massacre even reason of
knowing appear before if he is under passion or
ly it when it is the Witness personal
renderin conducting Protection hostility,
g an investigation Program? patent and
unjust in aid of gross enough
decision. legislation? A: NO. as to amount
Consistent with to an evasion
A: NO. The RTC or in relation to the principle of of a positive
any court may not the separation of duty or virtual
do so because that Maguindanao powers refusal to
would be violative massacre. enshrined in the perform a duty
of the principle of Kenny Constitution, the enjoined by
separation of Dalandag was Court deems it a law.”
powers. The then admitted sound judicial
principle to the Witness policy not to Kenny
essentially means Protection interfere in the Dalandag who
that legislation Program of the conduct of admitted his
belongs to DOJ. Petitioner preliminary participation
Congress, Andal investigations, in the
execution to the Ampatuan, Jr., and to allow the commission of
Executive and one of the Executive the
settlement of legal principal Department, Maguindanao
controversies to suspects, wrote through the massacre was
the Judiciary. Each to respondent Department of no hindrance
is prevented from Secretary of Justice, to his
invading the Justice De Lima exclusively to admission into
domain of the and Asst. Chief determine what the Witness
others. (Senate State constitutes Protection
Blue Ribbon Prosecutor sufficient Program as a
Committee v. Fadullon, evidence to state witness,
Majaducon, G.R. requesting that establish for all that was
No. 136760, July Dalandag be probable cause necessary was
29, 2003) included in the for the for him to
information for prosecution of appear not the
Q: The Panel of murder supposed most guilty.
Prosecutors considering he offenders. By Accordingly,
issued a joint already way of he could not
resolution based confessed his exception, anymore be
on the affidavits participation in however, charged for
of Kenny the massacre. judicial review his
Dalandag, Respondent may be allowed participation
charging several refused. where it is in the
individuals with Petitioner clearly Maguindanao
multiple murder Ampatuan then
massacre, as to which substitute the of the Legislature. House Ethics
his admission judgment of the Committee.
operated as an former for that of Q: Amog was Later, the HoR,
acquittal, unless he the latter. As such, elected dividing along
later on refuses or the creation by the Congressman. party lines,
fails to testify in President of a Before the end of voted to expel
accordance with the public office like the her first year in her. Claiming
sworn statement that Truth Commission, office, she that her
became the basis for without either a inflicted physical expulsion was
his discharge against provision of the injuries on a railroaded and
those now charged Constitution or a colleague, Camille tainted by
for the crimes. proper law enacted Gonzales, in the bribery, she filed
(Ampatuan, Jr., v. De by Congress course of a heated a petition
Lima, G.R. No. authorizing such debate. Charges seeking a
197291, April 3, creation, is not an were filed in court declaration by
2013) act that the power against her as the SC that
of control includes. well as in the
Q: Pres. Benigno (Biraogo v. The
Aquino III signed Philippine Truth the House gravely could not interfere with the
E.O. No. 1 Commission, G.R. abused its suspension of a
establishing the No. 192935, 7 discretion and Congressman for disorderly
Philippine Truth December 2010, violated the behavior, because the
Commission, a Bersamin, J. Constitution. She House of Representatives is
special body to separate opinion) prayed that her the judge of what
investigate Pork Barrel expulsion be constitutes disorderly
reported cases of annulled and that behavior. The assault of a
graft and "PORK BARREL" is she should be fellow Senator constitutes
corruption political parlance of restored by the disorderly behavior.
allegedly American Speaker to her However, under Sec. 1, Art.
committed during -English origin. Its position as VIII of the 1987
the Arroyo usage may be Congressman. Is Constitution, the Supreme
administration. Is traced to the AviAmog’s petition Court may inquire whether
E.O. No. 1 degrading ritual of before the Supreme or not the decision to expel
constitutional? rolling out a barrel Court justiciable? AviAmog is tainted with
stuffed with pork to grave abuse of discretion
A: NO. The President a multitude of black A: NO. The petition amounting to lack or excess
has no power to slaves who would is not justiciable of jurisdiction.
create a public office. cast their famished because as stated in
It is not shared by bodies into the Alejandrino v. Q: Joey Tribbiani was
Congress with the porcine feast to Quezon, et al. (46 convicted of estafa. When
President, until and assuage their Phil. 83), the his case reached the
unless Congress hunger with Supreme Court held Supreme Court, some
enacts legislation morsels coming that it could not Justices proposed to alter
that delegates a part from the generosity compel the Senate to the penalties provided for
of the power to the of their well-fed reinstate a Senator under RPC on the basis of
President, or any master. This who assaulted the ratio of P1.00 to
other officer or practice was later another Senator and P100.00, believing that it
agency. It is already compared to the was suspended for is not fair to apply the
settled that the actions of American disorderly behavior, range of penalties, which
President’s power of legislators in trying because it could not was based on the value of
control can only to direct federal compel a separate money in 1932, to crimes
mean the power of an budgets in favor of and co-equal committed at present.
officer to alter, their districts. department to take However, other justices
modify, or set aside While in the any particular action. opposed the said
what a subordinate Philippines it was In Osmeña v. proposal for it amounts to
officer had done in referred as lump- Pendatun (109 Phil. judicial legislation. Is the
the performance of sum, discretionary 863), it was held that opposition correct?
his duties, and to funds of Members the Supreme Court
17
POLITICAL LAW
A: YES. The opposition a dent
is correct because the should shy d prepar
Court cannot modify away from m es the
the said range of encroaching i budget
penalties because that upon the n which
would constitute primary i serves
judicial legislation. function of a s as the
What the legislature's co-equal t basis
perceived failure in branch of the r of the
amending the Government; a bill
penalties provided for otherwise, this t adopte
in the said crimes would lead to i d by
cannot be remedied an inexcusable v Congre
through this Court's breach of the e ss;
decisions, as that doctrine of c. Amnes
would be encroaching separation of p ty
upon the power of powers by e grante
another branch of the means of r d by
government. judicial s the
legislation. o Preside
Verily, the primordial (Corpuz v. n nt
duty of the Court is People, G.R. No. n require
merely to apply the 180016, April e s the
law in such a way that 29, 2014) l concur
it shall not usurp ; rence
legislative powers by Principle of Blending of b. G of the
judicial legislation and Powers e majorit
that in the course of n y of all
such application or Refers to an e the
construction, it should instance when r membe
not make or supervise powers are not a rs of
legislation, or under confined l the
the guise of exclusively Congre
interpretation, modify, within one A ss; and
revise, amend, distort, department but p d. Power
remodel, or rewrite are assigned to p of the
the law, or give the or shared by r COMEL
law a construction several o EC to
which is repugnant to departments. p deputi
its terms. Succinctly r ze law-
put, the Court Examples of the Blending of i enforc
Powers a ement
t agenci
a. Power of i es and
appoint o instru
ment n mental
which s ities of
can be the
exercised L govern
by each a ment
departm w for the
ent and purpos
be – e of
rightfully ensuri
exercised P ng free,
by each r orderly
departm e ,
ent over s honest,
its own i peacef

ul enforce been
a and constitutionall
n administ y conferred
d er all upon the
cr laws and department
e regulatio claiming its
di ns exercise.
bl relative
e the XPN: Doctrine
el conduct of Necessary
ec of Implication
ti elections. (2010 Bar)
o [Art. IX- Exercise of the
n C, Sec. power may be
s 2(1)] justified in the
in (Concurri absence of an
ac ng and express
c Dissentin conferment
or g Opinion because the
d of Justice
a Puno,
n Macalint
ce al v.
w COMELE
it C, G.R.
h No.
th 157013, Judicial check
e July 10, on the other
p 2003) two branches
o LEGISLATIVE CHECK
w CHECKS AND It may declare
er Executive BALANCES Judiciary (through the SC
gr Revoke or amend the as the final
a decisions
Principle of by either: and
Checks arbiter) the acts
nt - Enacting a new law
Balances of both the
e - Amending the old legislature and
Override the veto of
d the President Allows law, one
giving it certain executive as
to definition
department to and unconstitutional
it resist interpretation or invalid so
b different from the
encroachments long as there is
y upon old. its grave abuse of
th Reject certain Impeachment
prerogatives or of SC discretion
e appointments made to members
rectify amounting to
C by the president mistakes or lack or excess of
o excesses
Define, prescribe, jurisdiction.
n committed by jurisdiction
apportion
st Revoke the
the of lower
other Test to
courts:
it proclamation of
departments. determine
- Prescribe the
ut martial law or whether a
qualifications of
io suspension ofExecutive
the checkcourt
on judges
the other given power
lower
n privilege of thetwo
writbranches has been
- Impeachment
to of habeas corpus validly
EXECUTIVE CHECK
- Determination of
salaries of judges. Legislative exercised by a
Judiciary
Legislative check on the
Impeachmentother particular
- Through its power of
two branches department:
Determine the pardon, it may set aside
salaries of the Through its the judgment of the
veto power GR.:judiciary.
Whether
president or vice the power has power
president - Also by of
Concur to or reject appointment – power to
treaties the appoint members of the
19
president may enter Judiciary.
into
POLITICAL LAW
grant of express appropriations bill,
power carried with it it has flouted the STATE Doctrine of State
all other powers that prescribed IMMUNITY Immunity
may be reasonably procedure of
inferred from it. presentment. The State may not be who is deemed the
sued without its personification of the State,
Q: An 4. Impaired public consent. is inviolable, and thus,
appropriations law accountability - (1987 Constitution, enjoys immunity from suit.
granting the insofar as it has Art. XVI, Sec. 3) (JUSMAG Philippines v.
legislators lump- diluted the NLRC, G.R. No. 108813, Dec.
sum funds in which effectiveness of Basis of the 15, 1994)
they have full congressional Doctrine of State
discretion on what oversight by giving Immunity Likewise, public officials
project it would legislators a stake may not be sued for acts
fund and how much in the affairs of 1. Indiscriminate done in the performance of
the project would budget execution, suits against the their official functions or
cost, was passed. Is an aspect of State will impair within the scope of their
such law governance which its dignity and authority. (DOH v. Phil.
unconstitutional? they may be called supposed Pharmawealth, Inc., G.R. No.
to monitor and infallibility. 182358, February 20, 2013)
A: YES. scrutinize. 2. Per Justice
Holmes, there can NOTE: The rule is that if the
1. It violated the 5. Subverted be no legal right judgment against such
principle of genuine local against the officials will require the
separation of autonomy - insofar authority which state itself to perform an
powers - Insofar as it as it has authorized makes the law on affirmative act to satisfy the
has allowed legislators, who are which the right same, the suit may be
legislators to wield, national officers, to depends. regarded as against the
in varying gradations, intervene in affairs 3. If it were state itself although it has
non-oversight, post- of purely local otherwise, not been formally
enactment authority nature, despite the government impleaded. (Garcia v. Chief
in vital areas of existence of capable service may be of Staff, G.R. No. L-20213,
budget execution. local institutions. severely January 31, 1966)
obstructed and
2. It violated the 6. Transgressed public safety XPN: A State may be sued if
principle of non- the principle of endangered it gives consent, whether
delegability of non- delegability because of the express or implied.
legislative power -insofar as it has number of suits
-insofar as it has conferred to the that the State has Q: The USS Guardian of
conferred unto President the to defend against. the US Navy ran aground
legislators the power power to on an area near the
of appropriation by appropriate funds GR: All states are Tubbataha Reefs, a
giving them personal, intended by law for sovereign equals and marine habitat of which
discretionary funds energy-related cannot assert entry and certain human
from which they are purposes only to jurisdiction over one activities are prevented
able to fund specific other purposes he another, consonant and afforded protection
projects which they may deem fit as with the public by Philippine laws and
themselves well as other public international law UNCLOS. Bishop Arigo of
determine. funds under the principle of par in Palawan filed a petition
broad classification parem non habet for the issuance of Writ of
3. Denied the of "priority imperium. A contrary Kalikasan and impleaded
President’s power infrastructure disposition would US officials in their
to veto items - development "unduly vex the capacity as commanding
insofar as it has projects." (Belgica peace of nations." officers of the US Navy. He
created a system of v. Ochoa, G.R. No. (Arigo v. Swift, G.R. argues that there is a
budgeting wherein 208566, Nov. 19, No. 206510, waiver of immunity from
items are not 2013 PER J. September 16, 2014) suit found in the Visiting
textualized into the PERLAS-BERNABE) Forces Agreement (VFA)
The head of State, between the US and the
Philippines, and presen
invoke federal US have t Under both
statues in the US statutorily petitio Public
under which waived their n for International
agencies of the immunity to issuan Law and
any action. Is ce of a Transnationa
he correct? Writ of l Law, a
Kalika person who
A: NO. The VFA san. feels
is an agreement The aggrieved by
which defines princi the acts of a
the treatment ple of foreign
of United States State sovereign can
troops and immu ask his own
personnel nity government
visiting the theref to espouse
Philippines to ore his cause
promote bars through
“common the diplomatic
security exercis channels.
interests” e of (Holy See v.
between the US jurisdi Rosario, G.R.
and the ction No. 101949,
Philippines in by this December 1,
the region. The Court 1994)
invocation of over
US federal tort the Forms of consent
laws and even person
common law is s of E
thus improper the US x
considering Official p
that it is the s. r
VFA which (Arigo e
governs v. s
disputes Swift, s
involving US G.R.
military ships No. c
and crew 20651 o
navigating 0, n
Philippine Septe s
waters in mber e
pursuance of 16, n
the objectives 2014) t
of the G
agreement. Remed e
However, the y of a n
waiver of State person e
immunity who r
under the VFA feels a
pertains only to aggrie l
criminal ved by
jurisdiction and the l
applicable only acts of a
to US personnel a w
under VFA and foreig i. A
not to special n c
civil actions govern t
such as the ment N
21
POLITICAL LAW
o on i
. ey n R
cla e
3 im c j
0 s o e
8 ari u c
3 sin r t
g t i
a fro . o
n m n
d co T
ntr h o
C act e f
A s t
wh C h
3 ich O e
2 co A c
7 uld l
ser m a
ve u i
a
as s m
s
a t
ba a
a sis
m a u
of t
e c
civ h
n t
il o
d act
e u r
ion i
d bet p
o z
we e
b en n
y s
pri t
vat t
h h
S e
e e
e pa c
c rti l
s es c
a
. to l
i
be a
m
4 firs i
a
9 t m
n
- file t
5 d w t
0 wit i o
, h t e
CO h l
P A i e
D bef n v
ore a
1 a 6 t
4 sui 0 e
4 t t
5 ma d h
y a e
– be y m
file s a
M d . t

t ort ( .,
e co C G
r m i .
mi t R
t tte y .
o d N
by o o
t sp f .
h eci L
e al M -
ag a 2
S ent n 3
u ; i 0
p iii. Ar l 5
r t. a 2
e 21 ,
m 89, v J
e NC . a
C – n
C LG T u
o Us e a
u lia o r
r ble t y
t for i
inj c 2
uri o 9
o
es , ,
n
or 1
de 9
c e
ath 6
e t
ca 8
r us )
t ed a
;
i by l
o def
r iv. Sec. L
ect
a 22(2), G
ive
r RA Us
co
i 7160, an
ndi
. LGC of d
tio
ii. A 1991 – th
n
r LG ei
of
t Us r
roa
. hav of
ds e fic
or
2 po ial
pu
1 wer s
bli
8 to ar
c
0 sue e
wo
, and n
rks be ot
un
N sue ex
de
C d; e
r
C and m
the
v. Sec. pt
ir
24 fr
– co
of o
ntr
LG m
T ol
C – lia
23
POLITICAL LAW
bility Mendiola the State having r
for incident waived its an
death instituted an immunity from d
or action against suit. The u
injur the Republic of President's act ne
y or the Philippines of joining the q
dama before the trial marchers, days ui
ge to court. after the vo
prope Respondent incident, does ca
rty. Judge Sandoval not mean that l,
dismissed the there was an an
NOTE: The complaint on admission by d
express consent of the ground of the State of any an
the State to be state immunity liability. ex
sued must be from suit. Moreover, pr
embodied in a Petitioners petitioners rely es
duly enacted argued that the on President s
statute and may State has Aquino's speech w
not be given by a impliedly promising that ai
mere counsel of waived its the government ve
the government. immunity from would address r
(Republic v. suit with the the grievances
Purisima, G.R. No. recommendati of the rallyists.
L- 36084, Aug. 31, on of the By this alone, it
1977) Commission to cannot be
indemnify the inferred that the
Q: Kilusang heirs and State has
Magbubukid ng victims of the admitted any
Pilipinas (KMP) Mendiola liability, much
members incident by the less can it be
clashed with the government inferred that it
anti-riot squad and by the has consented
which resulted public to the suit.
to 13 deaths and addresses (Republic v.
several made by then Sandoval, G.R.
casualties. President No. 84607,
Thereafter, Aquino in the March 19, 1993)
President aftermath of
Corazon C. the killings. Is b. Special
Aquino issued the argument law
AO 11 creating meritorious? i. By
the Citizens’ virt
Mendiola A: NO. The ue
Commission to actions of of
conduct the President PD
investigation Aquino cannot 162
about the be deemed as a 0,
incident. The waiver of State the
commission immunity. gra
recommended Whatever acts nt
compensating or utterances of
the victims. The that then im
petitioners President mu
(Caylao group) Aquino may nity
together with the have done or to
military said, the same IRR
personnel are not I is
involved in the tantamount to clea

by its its intervention business given its
Director waive its right of relations; consent to
General immunity from commercial, be sued only
is the suit? or proprietary when it
only way acts. MAY BE enters into
by which A: NO. The Republic SUED. (US v. business
it may of the Philippines Guinto, contracts.
relinquis did not waive its G.R. No. 76607, Consequentl
h or immunity from suit. February 26, y, the
abandon It intervened in the 1990) restrictive
this case merely to unite application
immunit with the defendant NOTE: The of State
y. Attorney General of State may be immunity is
(Callado, the United States in said to have proper only
v. IRRI, resisting plaintiff’s descended to in such case.
G.R. No. claims, and for that the level of an (Restrictive
106483, reason asked no individual and Theory of
May 22, affirmative relief. can thus be State
1995) This is not a case deemed to Immunity
where the state have tacitly from suit)
2. Implied consent takes the initiative
a. When the against a private 2. In jure imperii – G.R. No. 90478,
State party by filing a By right of November 21,
commences complaint in sovereign 1991)
litigation, it intervention, power and in
becomes thereby the exercise of Q: Do all contracts
vulnerable to surrendering its sovereign entered into by the
counterclaim privileged position functions. No government operate as a
. (Froilan v. and coming down implied waiver of its non-
Pan Oriental to the level of the consent. (US v. suability?
Shipping, defendant, but one Ruiz, G.R. No. L-
G.R. No. L- where the state, as 35645, May 22, A: NO. Distinction must still
6060, one of the 1985) be made between one
September defendants, merely which is executed in the
30, 1954) resisted a claim NOTE: In exercise of its sovereign
against it precisely exercising the function and another which
Q: In a property on the ground power of is done in its proprietary
dispute, the among others, of its eminent capacity. A State may be
Attorney General of privileged position, domain, the said to have descended to
the United States which exempts it State exercises the level of an individual
and the defendant- from suit. (Lim v. a power jure and can be deemed to have
intervenor Republic Brownell, G.R. No. L- imperii. Yet, it actually given its consent to
of the Philippines 8587, March 24, has been held be sued only when it enters
each filed an 1960) that where into business contracts. It
answer alleging by property has does not apply where the
way of affirmative b. When State been taken contract relates to the
defense that the enters into without the exercise of its sovereign
lower court had no a business payment of just functions. (Department of
jurisdiction over contract. compensation, Agriculture v. NLRC G.R. No.
the claim since the the defense of 104269, Nov. 11, 1993)
action in that Capacities of the immunity from
regard constituted a State in entering suit cannot be When suit is considered
suit against the into contracts set up in an as suit against the State
United Sates to action for
which it had not 1. In jure payment by the 1. The Republic is sued
given its consent. gestionis – By owner. by name;
Did the Republic of right of (Republic v. 2. The suit is against an
the Philippines by economic or Sandiganbayan, unincorporated
25
POLITICAL LAW
government Definition in its favor. affected
agency suit is portion by
performing determined by deed of sale
propriety the character of to the ATO
functions; and the objects for for
3. The suit is on its which the Q: consideratio
face against a entity is Spous n, which
government organized. es ATO failed
officer but the When the David to pay. In an
case is such that government and action for
ultimate liability enters into a Elisea collection of
will belong to the commercial Ramo money
government. business, it s against ATO,
(Republic v. abandons its discov the latter
Sandoval, G.R. sovereign ered invoked
No. 84607, March capacity and is that a Proclamatio
19, 1993) to be treated portio n No. 1358
like any other n of whereby it
Q: Spouses Sison corporation. In their reserved
sued the Philippine this case, the land certain
National Railways State divested in parcels of
for damages for the itself of its Bagui land,
death of their son sovereign o City including
who fell from an capacity when was the subject
overloaded train it organized the being portion
belonging to the PNR which is used herein, for
PNR. The trial court no different as the use of
dismissed the suit on from its part the Loakan
the ground that the predecessors, of the Airport.
charter of the PNR, the Manila runwa They
as amended by PD Railroad y and asserted
741, has made the Company. runni that RTC did
same a government (Malang v. ng not have any
instrumentality, and PNRC, G.R. No. shoul jurisdiction
thus immune from L-49930, der of to entertain
suit. Is the dismissal August 7, 1985) the the action
proper? Loaka without the
Unincorporate n State’s
A: NO. PNR is not d government
Airpo consent. The
immune from suit. It agency rt RTC and CA
did not remove itself performing being dismissed
from the operation of governmental opera the petition.
Arts. 1732 to 1766 of function vs. ted by Can the ATO
the Civil Code on one Air be sued
common carriers. Not performing Trans without the
all government proprietary portat State’s
entities, whether functions ion consent?
corporate or non- Office
corporate, are UNINCORPOR UNINCORPORAT
(ATO). A: YES. An
immune from suits. ATED The unincorporat
Immunity from GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT
Spous ed
BASIS AGENCY es government
PERFORMING Ramo agency
GOVERNMENT PROPRIETARY
s without any
AL FUNCTIONS agree separate
Immunity
d to juridical
Immunity has notconve
been upheld personality of
been upheld in its
y favor
the its own

enjoys unincorporated Government of
immunit government the Philippine 2. Government
y from agency Islands, G.R. No. agencies–
suit performing L-11154, March Establish
because governmental 21, 1916) whether or
it is function and not the
invested one performing And where “… State, as
with an proprietary liability is principal
inherent functions has ascertained which may
power arisen. The judicially, the ultimately
of juridical state is at liberty be held
sovereig character of to determine for liable, has
nty. ATO is an itself whether to given its
Howeve agency of the satisfy judgment consent.
r, the government or not.” 3. Government–
need to without (Municipality of Doctrine of
distingui performing a Hagonoy, State
sh purely Bulacan v. immunity is
between governmental Dumdum, Jr., available.
an or G.R. No. 168289;
March 22, 2010) Instances when a
sovereign of the public officer may
function but is As to State to Rule on the be sued without the
instead involved basis be sued liabilities of State’s consent
in the the following:
management and 1. To compel him
maintenance of The 1. Public to do an act
the Loakan circumsta officers– By required by
Airport, an nce that a their acts law;
activity that was As a State is without or 2. To restrain
not exclusive consequ suable in excess of him from
prerogative of the e nce of does not jurisdictio enforcing an
State in its another necessaril n: any act claimed
sovereign y mean injury to be
capacity. Hence, that it is caused by unconstituti
the ATO had no liable. him is his onal;
claim to the State own 3. To compel
immunity from NOTE: It is one personal payment of
suit. The thing to consent liability damages
obligation of ATO to being sued, and cannot from an
to Spouses Ramos another to admit be imputed already
might be enforced liability, thus the to the appropriate
against CAAP. (Air phrase, “waiver State. d assurance
Transportation of immunity by fund or to
Office v. Sps. the State does refund tax
David, G.R. No. not mean a over-
159402, February concession of payments
23, 2011) its liability.” from a fund
already
Suability vs. “By consenting available for
Liability vs. to be sued, a the purpose;
Execution state simply 4. To secure a
waives its judgment
BASIS SUABILITY immunity from that the
suit. It does not officer
Depends thereby concede impleaded
on the its liability.” may satisfy
consent (Merritt v. the
27
POLITICAL LAW
judgment by capacity, from file a petition for Art. III of the 1987
himself without liability mandamus to Constitution that private
the State having arising from compel the property shall not be taken
to do a positive acts legislative authority for public use without just
act to assist committed in to enact a law. compensation will be
him; or bad faith; or (Municipality of rendered nugatory.
5. Where the 2. The public Makati v. CA, G.R. (Ministerio v. CFI, G.R. No. L-
government official is Nos. 89898-99, 31635, August 31, 1971)
itself has clearly being October 1, 1990)
violated its own sued not in his Q: Sps. Benigno sought to
laws because official The government register their lot. The RTC
the doctrine of capacity but in cannot be made to granted their petition.
State immunity his personal pay interest in Arguing that the lot is
cannot be used capacity, money judgments inalienable, the Republic,
to perpetrate an although the against it, except in through the OSG,
injustice. acts the following appealed before the CA
complained of instances but moved four times to
GR: The true test in may have been extend the period for
determining whether committed 1. Exercise of the filing its appellant’s brief.
a suit against a public while he power of CA dismissed the OSG’s
officer is a suit occupied a eminent appeal. The OSG filed its
against the State is public domain brief after moving to
that, if a public officer position. 2. Erroneous reconsider the CA’s
or agency is sued and (Lansang v. collection of denial of its appeal.
made liable, the State CA, G.R. No. taxes However, CA stood its
will have to 102667, 3. Where ground on its original
perform an February 23, government decision. Does the OSG’s
affirmative act of 2000) agrees to pay failure to file the
appropriating the interest Republic’s appeal brief
needed amount to Garnishment of pursuant to law bind the State?
satisfy the government funds
judgment. If the Q: Keanu Lazzer A: NO. As a matter of
State will have to do GR: Whether the filed an action doctrine, illegal acts of
so, then, it is a suit money is deposited directly in court government agents do not
against the State. by way of general against the bind the State, and the
or special deposit, government Government is never
XPNs: they remain seeking payment estopped from questioning
1. The public government funds for a parcel of land the acts of its officials, more
official is and are not subject which the national so if they are
charged in his to garnishment. government
official capacity utilized for a road
for acts that are XPN: Where a law or widening project.
unlawful and ordinance has been Can the
injurious to the enacted appropriating government invoke
rights of others. a specific amount to the doctrine of
Public officials pay a valid non- suitability of
are not exempt, the state?
in their personal
A: NO. When the
government and are deposited with a government
obligation, then the bank, can be garnished. (PNB expropriates
money can be v. Pabalan, G.R. No. L-33112, property for public
garnished. June 15, 1978) use without paying
just compensation, it
NOTE: Funds If the local legislative cannot invoke its
belonging to authority refuses to enact a immunity from suit.
government law appropriating the money Otherwise, the right
corporations, which judgment rendered by the guaranteed in Sec. 9,
can sue and be sued court, the winning party may
erroneo
us, let
alone
irregula
r. This
principl
e
applies
in land
registrat
ion
cases.
Certainl
y, the
State
will not
be
allowed
to
abdicate
its
authorit
y over
lands of
the
public
domain
just
because
its
agents
and
officers
have
been
negligen
t in the
perform
ance of
their
duties.
(Republi
c v. Sps.
Benign)
29
POLITICAL LAW
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT b. On Appropriations [1987 Constitution,
Art. VI, Secs. 25 and 29(1&2)]
LEGISLATIVE POWER c. On Taxation (1987 Constitution, Art. VI,
Secs. 28 and 29, par. 3)
d. On Constitutional appellate jurisdiction
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS of SC (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 30)
e. No law granting a title of royalty or
The following may exercise legislative power nobility shall be enacted (1987
1. Congress Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 31).
2. Regional/Local Government Units f. No specific funds shall be appropriated
3. The People through initiative and or paid for use or benefit of any religion,
referendum. (2002 Bar) sect, etc., except for priests, etc., assigned
to AFP, penal institutions, etc. (1987
Limitations on the legislative power of Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 29[2])
Congress
b) Implied:
The Constitution itself provides limitations on the a. Prohibition against irrepealable laws
exercise of legislative powers. b. Non-delegation of powers
1. Substantive: limitations on the content of XPNs to Non-Delegation Doctrine:
laws. i. Delegation to the President [1987
2. Procedural: limitations on the manner of Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 23(2)
and
passing laws. Sec. 28(2)]
3. Congress Delegati
cannot on to the
pass people
irrepealabl P (1987
e laws. r Constitut
4. Congress, o ion, Art
as a c VI, Sec.
general e 32)
rule, d
cannot u
delegate r
its a
legislative l
power.
XPN: See of
Delegation
Legislative
Powers.
P
C
o
o
w
n
e
g
r
r
s
e
s
o
s
f
LeGISlATIve DePARTMent
L 1. General 1. Only one Representati
plenary subject, to be ves. (1987
e power (Art. stated in the Constitution,
VI, Sec. 1) title of the bill Art. VI, Sec.
g 2. Specific [1987 24)
power of Constitution,
i appropriati Art. VI, Sec. Classes of
on 26(1)]. legislative power
s 3. Taxation 2. Three (3) 1. Original:
and readings on Possessed
l expropriati separate days; by the
on printed copies people in
a 4. Legislative of the bill in their
investigatio its final form sovereign
t n to be capacity i.e.
5. Question distributed to initiative
i hour its members 3 and
days before referendum.
v Doctrine of its passage, 2. Delegated:
Shifting except if the Possessed
e Majority President by Congress
certifies to its and other
For each House immediate legislative
of Congress to enactment to bodies by
p pass a bill, only meet a public the
the votes of the calamity or Constitution.
o majority of those emergency; 3. Constituent:
present in the upon its last The power
w session, there reading, no to amend or
being a quorum, amendment revise the
e is required. shall be Constitution.
allowed and 4. Ordinary: The
r Limitations on the vote power to pass
Legislative thereon shall ordinary laws.
The power or Powers be taken
competence to immediately PRINCIPLE
propose, enact, Substantive and the yeas OF NON-
ordain, a) Express: and nays DELEGABILITY
amend/alter, a. Bill of entered into
modify, abrogate Rights the Journal
or repeal laws. It (1987 [1987
is vested in the Constitu Constitution,
Congress which tion, Art. VI, Sec.
shall consist of a Art. III) 2(2)].
Senate and a 3. Appropriation
House of bills, revenue
Representatives, bills, tariff
except to the bills, bills
extent reserved to authorizing
the people by the the increase
provision on of public debt,
initiative and bills of local
referendum. application
and private
Legislative bills shall
powers of originate
Congress exclusively in
the House of
GR: What has been delegated cannot be delegated. may be provided NOTE: Congress itself
by law). may by law increase
It is based upon the ethical principle that such the composition of the
delegated power constitutes not only as a right, HoR through the
but also as a duty to be performed by the delegate creation of new
through the instrumentality of his own judgment provinces,
and not through the intervening mind of another. redistricting, and
A further delegation of such power, unless attendant adjustments
permitted by the sovereign power, would in number of party-list
constitute a negation of this duty in violation of representatives.
the trust reposed in the delegate. (Cruz, supra at Qualifications
160) (1993, 1999 Bar)
1. Natural-born
XPNS: citizen of the
Philippines;
1.) Delegations to the People at large; 2. At least 25 years
(a) R.A. 6735 – The Initiative and Referendum of age on the day
Act as authorized by the constitutional of election
mandate for the creation of a system of XPN: A youth sector
legislation by initiative and referendum nominee must be at
(b) A plebiscite is required in the creation, least twenty-five
division, merger, abolition of province, city, (25) but not more
municipality, or barangay or the than thirty (30)
substantial alteration of its boundary. 1. Natural-born
years of age on the
citizen of the
day of the election.
NOTE: These are more of reservations of power Philippines;
Once he attains the
by the people than delegations considering the 2. At least 35 years
age of thirty (30)
fact that the people are repositories of all of age on the day
during his term, he
governmental powers. of election;
shall be allowed to
3. Able to read
continue in office
2.) Emergency powers of the President; and write;
until the expiration
3.) Tariff powers of the President; 4. A registered voter;
of his term. [RA No.
4.) Delegation to Administrative bodies of the 5. Resident of the
7941, Sec. 9 (2)]
power of subordinate legislation. Philippines for not
3. Able to read
less than 2 years
and write;
HOUSES OF CONGRESS immediately
4. Except the party-
preceding the day
list
Composition of Congress of election. (Art.
representatives, a
VI, Sec. 3)
registered voter in
The Philippine Congress is bicameral in nature, the district in
composed of: NOTE:
which he shall be
1. Senate Enumeration is
elected;
2. House of Representatives exclusive.
5. Resident thereof
a. District representatives for a period of not
b. Party-list representatives less than 1 year
immediately
Composition, qualifications, and term of office preceding the day
of members of Congress of the election.
(Art. VI, Sec. 6)
HOUSE OF
SENATE
REPRESENTATIVES NOTE:
Composition Enumeration is
24 Senators Not more than 250 exclusive.
(elected at large members, unless Term of office
by qualified otherwise fixed by (2001 Bar)
voters of the law.
Philippines as
Disqualifications of members
6 years, of Congress
which shall 3 years, which shall
commence, unless begin, unless
otherwise provided by otherwise provided by
HOUSE OF
law, at noon on the law, at noon on the SENATE
REPRESENTATIVES
30th day of June next 30th day of June next
following their following their No Senator shall serve Shall not serve for more
election. election. for more than two (2) than three (3)
consecutive terms. consecutive terms.
Term limit: Not more Term limit: Not more Voluntary Voluntary renunciation
than 2 consecutive than 3 consecutive renunciation of the of the office for any
terms. terms. office for any length length of time shall not
of time shall not be considered as an
Note: Senators have a be interruption in the
term of office of six considered as an continuity of his service
years on a staggered interruption in the for the full term for
basis - each set of continuity of his which he was elected
twelve senators end service for the full (Art. VI, Sec. 7). (2001
term for which he was Bar)
their term three years
apart. elected (Art. VI, Sec.
4).
In Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, the One who has been declared by competent
Court upheld the qualification of Mrs. Imelda authority as insane or incompetent
Romuladez- Marcos (IRM) despite her own One who has been sentenced by final
declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she judgment for: (SIR-18-M)
had resided in the district for only seven (7)
months, because of the following: a. Subversion;
b. Insurrection;
1. A minor follows the domicile of his parents; c. Rebellion;
Tacloban became IRM’s domicile of origin by d. Any offense for which he has been sentenced
operation of law when her father brought to a penalty of not more than 18 months; or
the family to Leyte; e. A crime involving Moral turpitude, unless
2. Domicile of origin is lost only when: given plenary pardon o granted amnesty
a. there is actual removal or change of Expulsion of members of Congress
domicile
b. a bona fide intention of abandoning
MEMBERS OF THE
the former residence and establishing
SENATORS HOUSE OF
a new one
REPRESENTATIVES
c. acts which correspond with the
purpose Expulsion by the Expulsion by the House
Senate with the with the concurrence
3. The wife does not automatically gain the concurrence of 2/3 of of 2/3 of all its
husband’s domicile because the term all its members. (1987 members. (1987
“residence” in Civil Law does not mean the Constitution, Art. VI, Constitution, Art. VI,
same thing in Political Law; when IRM Sec. 16, par. 3) Sec. 16, par. 3)
married Marcos in 1954, she kept he
domicile of origin and merely gained a new NOTE: The Congress cannot validly amend or
home, not a domicilium necessarium otherwise modify these qualification standards,
(necessary domicile); as it cannot disregard, evade, or weaken the force
4. Even assuming that she gained a new of a constitutional mandate, or alter or enlarge
domicile after her marriage and acquired the the Constitution. (Social Justice Society v. DDB and
right to choose a new one only after her PDEA, G.R Nos. 157870, 158633, 161658, Nov. 3,
husband dies, her acts following her return 2008)
to the country clearly indicates that she
chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her Rule on voluntary renunciation of office
domicile of choice. (Imelda Romualdez-
Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, Sept. Voluntary renunciation of office for any length of
18, 1995) time shall not be considered as an interruption in
the continuity of his service for the full term for
which he was elected. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, months prior to to election prohibits
Secs. 4 and 7) election does not the party-list
prevent a district representative from
Composition of the HoR (2002, 2007 Bar) representative from listing as
running under his representative under
DISTRICT PARTY-LIST new party. his new party or
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE organization.
As to who will vote
Elected by the Elected nationally DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVES AND
constituents of his (those garnering at QUESTIONS OF APPORTIONMENT
respective district. least 2% of all votes
cast for the party-list District representatives
system are entitled to 1
seat, which is increased Those who are elected from legislative districts
according to apportioned among the provinces, cities and the
proportional Metropolitan Manila area.
representation, but is in
no way to exceed 3 Apportionment of legislative districts
seats per organization.)
Residency requirement Legislative districts are apportioned among the
Must be a resident of No special residency provinces, cities, and the Metropolitan Manila
his legislative district requirement. area. They are apportioned in accordance with
for at least 1 year the number of their respective inhabitants and on
immediately before the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.
the election. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 5)
Name in the ballot
Elected personally, Voted upon by party or Apportionment is the determination of the
by name. organization. number of representatives which a State, country,
Effect of change in party affiliation or other subdivision may send to a legislative
Does not lose seat Loses his seat, in which body. It is the allocation of seats in a legislative
case he will be body in proportion to the population; the drawing
substituted by another of voting district lines so as to equalize
qualified person in the population and voting power. (Bagabuyo v.
party or organization COMELEC)
based on the list
submitted to the Each city with a population of at least 250,000
COMELEC. shall have at least one representative. Each
As to vacancy province, irrespective of the number of
A special election A substitution will be inhabitants, shall have at least one representative.
may be held made within the party,
provided that the based on the list While Sec. 5(3) of Art. VI requires a city to have a
vacancy takes place submitted to the minimum population of 250,000 to be entitled to
at least 1 year COMELEC. one representative; it does not have to increase
before its population by another 250,000 to be entitled
the next election.
to an additional district. (Senator Aquino III v.
Effect of defeat in the election
COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010)
A district A party-list
representative is not representative cannot
NOTE: When one of the municipalities of a
prevented from sit if he ran and lost in
congressional district is converted to a city large
running again as a the previous election.
enough to entitle it to one legislative district, the
district
incidental effect is the splitting of district into
representative if he
two. The incidental arising of a new district in this
lost in the previous
manner need not be preceded by a census.
election.
(Tobias v. Abalos, G.R. No. L-114783, Dec. 8, 1994)
Effect of change in party affiliation
to the upcoming elections
Essence of apportionment
A change in A change in affiliation
affiliation within within 6 months prior

The underlying principle behind the rule for
apportionment is the concept of equality of Reapportionment may be made through a special
representation, which is a basic principle of law. The Constitution did not preclude Congress
republicanism. One man’s vote should carry as from increasing its membership by passing a law,
much weight as the vote of every other man. other than a general reapportionment of the law.
To hold that reapportionment can only be made
NOTE: The question of the validity of an through a general apportionment law, with a
apportionment law is a justiciable question. review of all the legislative districts allotted to
(Macia v. Comelec, G.R. No. L-18684, Sept. 14, each local government unit nationwide, would
1961) create an inequitable situation where a new city
or province created by Congress will be denied
Conditions for apportionment legislative representation for an indeterminate
period of time. Thus, a law converting a
1. Elected from legislative districts which are municipality into a highly-urbanized city
apportioned in accordance with the number automatically creates a new legislative district
of inhabitants of each area and based on a and, consequently, increases the membership of
uniform and progressive ratio. the HoR. (Mariano, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
2. Uniform– Every representative of Congress 118577, March 7, 1995)
shall represent a territorial unit with more
or less a population of 250,000. All the other NOTE: The Constitution does not require a
representatives shall have the same or plebiscite for the creation of a new legislative
nearly the same political constituency so district by a legislative reapportionment. It is
much so that their votes will constitute the required only for the creation of new local
popular majority. government units. (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, 2008)
3. Progressive – It must respond to the change (2015 Bar)
in times. The number of House
representatives must not be so big as to be Gerrymandering (2014 Bar)
unwieldy (Let us say, there is a growth in
population. The ratio may then be increased. Formation of one legislative district out of
From 250,000 constituents/1 representative separate territories for the purpose of favoring a
it may be reapportioned to 300, 000 candidate or a party. It is not allowed because the
constituents/1 representative). Constitution provides that each district shall
4. Each city with a population of at least comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
250,000 or each province, irrespective of compact and adjacent territory.
number of inhabitants, shall at least have
one representative. Q: Congress enacted a law creating the
legislative district of Malolos based on a
GR: There must be proportional certification of the demographic projection
representation according to the number from NSO stating that by 2010, Malolos is
of their constituents/inhabitants. expected to reach the population of 250,000,
XPN: In one city-one representative/one hence entitling it to one legislative district. Is
province-one representative rule. the law valid?
5. Legislative districts shall be reapportioned A: NO. Congress cannot establish a new legislative
by Congress within 3 years after the return district based on a projected population of the
of each census. (Senator Aquino III v. National Statistics Office (NSO) to meet the
COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010) population requirement of the Constitution in
the reapportionment of legislative districts.
Manner of reapportionment
A city that has attained a population of 250,000 is
Reapportionment is the realignment or change in entitled to a legislative district only in the
legislative districts brought about by change in “immediately following election.” In short, a city
legislative districts brought about by changes in must first attain the 250,000 population, and
population and mandated by the constitutional thereafter such city shall have a district
requirement of equality of representation. representative in the immediately following
(Bagabuyo v. COMELEC) election. There is no showing in the present case
that the City of Malolos has attained or will attain
a population of 250,000, whether actual or
23
No plebiscite is required for the apportionment or
projected, before May 10, 2010 elections. Thus, reapportionment of legislative districts. A
the City of Malolos is not qualified to have a
legislative district of its own under Sec. 5(3), Art.
VI of the 1987 Constitution and Sec 3 of the
Ordinance appended to the 1987 Constitution.
(Aldaba v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188078, January 25,
2010)
Q: Congress enacted a law reapportioning the

composition of the Province of Camarines Sur
and created legislative districts thereon.
Frankie challenged the law because it runs
afoul to the constitutional requirement that
there must be at least a population of 250,000
to create a legislative district. COMELEC
argued that the mentioned requirement does
not apply to provinces. Is the 250,000
population standard an indispensable
requirement for the creation of a legislative
district in provinces?
A: NO. Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution

which requires 250,000 minimum population
apply only for a city to be entitled to a
representative but not for a province.
The provision draws a plain and clear distinction

between the entitlement of a city to a district, on
one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a
district on the other. For while a province is
entitled to at least a representative, with nothing
mentioned about population, a city must first
meet a population minimum of 250,000 in order
to be similarly entitled. (Aquino and Robredo v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010)
Q: Congress passed a law providing for the

apportionment of a new legislative district in
CDO City. COMELEC subsequently issued a
resolution implementing said law. Jovi now
assails the resolution, contending that rules
for the conduct of a plebiscite must first be
laid down, as part of the requirements under
the Constitution. According to Jovi, the
apportionment is a conversion and division of
CDO City, falling under Sec. 10 Art. X of the
Constitution, which provides for the rule on
creation, division, merger, and abolition of
LGUs. Decide.
A: There is no need for a plebiscite. CDO City

politically remains a single unit and its
administration is not divided along territorial
lines. Its territory remains whole and intact. Thus,
Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution does not come
into play.

registered under the party-list system.
legislative district is not a political
subdivision through which 1. Political party – Organized group of citizens
functions of government are advocating ideology or platform, principles
carried out. It can more and policies for the general conduct of
appropriately be described as a government and which, as the most
representative unit that merely immediate means of securing their adoption,
delineates the areas occupied by regularly nominates and supports certain of
the people who will choose a its leaders and members as candidate in
representative in their national public office. (Ang Bagong Bayani v.
affairs. A plebiscite is required only COMELEC and Bayan Muna v. COMELEC, G.R.
for the creation, division, merger, Nos. 147589 and 147613, June 26, 2001, June
or abolition of local government 26, 2001)
units. (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 176970, December 8, 2008) 2. National party whose
– Its principal
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM (RA No. 7941) constituency advocacy
is spread over pertains to
Party-list system the the special
geographical interest and
Mechanism of proportional territory of at concerns of
representation in the election of least a their sectors.
representatives to the HoR from majority of 5. Sectoral
national, regional and sectoral regions. Organization
parties or organizations or 3. Regional party – Refers to a
coalitions thereof registered with – Its group of
the COMELEC. constituency is citizens who
spread over share similar
NOTE: Party-list representatives the physical
shall constitute 20% of the total geographical attributes or
number of representatives in the territory of at characteristi
HoR including those under the least a cs,
party list. (1987 Constitution, Art. majority of the employment,
VI, Sec. 5, par. 2) (2007 Bar) cities and interest or
provinces concerns.
Purpose of the party-list system comprising 6. Coalition –
the region. Refers to an
To make the marginalized and the 4. Sectoral party aggregation
underrepresented not merely – Organized of duly
passive recipients of the State’s group of registered
benevolence, but active citizens national,
participants in the mainstream of belonging to regional,
representative democracy. (Ang any of the sectoral
Bagong Bayani v. COMELEC, G.R. following parties or
No. 147589, June 26, 2001) sectors: labor, organization
peasant, s for political
To democratize political power by fisherfolk, and/or
giving political parties that cannot urban poor, election
win in legislative district elections indigenous, purposes.
a chance to win seats in the HoR. cultural
(Atong Paglaum v. COMELEC, G.R. communities, Composition of
203766, April 2, 2013) elderly, the party-list
handicapped, system
Different parties under the party-list system women, youth,
veterans, 1. National
No votes cast in favor of political overseas parties or
party, organization or coalition workers and organizati
shall be valid except for those professionals, ons
25
2. Regi regional, G.R. No. 203766,
onal and April 2, 2013) To require all
parti sectoral national and regional
es or parties or National and parties under the
orga organizatio Regional parties party-list system to
nizat ns,” had need not represent the
ions; the represent the “marginalized and
and framers of “m underrepresented” is
3. Sect the 1987 arginalized and to deprive and
oral Constitutio underrepresented exclude, by judicial
parti n intended ” sectors fiat, ideology- based
es or national and cause-oriented
orga and parties from the
nizat regional party- list system. To
ions. parties to exclude them from
be at the the party-list system
National and same time is to prevent them
regional sectoral, from joining the
parties or they would parliamentary
organization have stated struggle, leaving as
s are “national their only option
different and armed struggle. To
from regional exclude them from
sectoral sectoral the party-list system
parties or parties.” is, apart from being
organization They did obviously senseless,
s. National not, patently contrary to
and regional precisely the clear intent and
parties or because it express wording of
organization was never the 1987
s need not their Constitution and RA
be intention 7941. (Atong
organized to make Paglaum v. COMELEC,
along the party- ibid.)
sectoral list system
lines and exclusively NOTE: Major
need not sectoral. political parties
represent National cannot participate in
any sector. and the party-list
regional elections since they
The party- parties are neither lack “well-
list system separate defined political
is not solely from constituencies” nor
for the sectoral represent
benefit of parties and “marginalized and
sectoral need not underrepresented”
parties be sectors. (Atong
organized Paglaum v.
Sec. 5(1), along COMELEC, ibid.)
Art. VI of the sectoral
Constitution lines nor However, the
is crystal- represent participation of
clear that any major political
there shall particular parties may be
be “a party- sector. through their
list system (Atong sectoral wings, a
of registered Paglaum v. majority of whose
national, COMELEC, members are

“marginalized office; g his c. becomes
and or nominatio incapacitat
underrepresent b. a n; or ed
ed” or lacking pers
in “well-defined on NOTE: Incumbent sector represented, or
political who sectoral have a track record of
constituencies.” has representatives in the advocacy for such
(Atong lost HoR who are sector. (Atong Paglaum
Paglaum v. his nominated in the party- v. COMELEC, ibid.)
COMELEC, ibid.) bid list system shall not be
for considered resigned. 6. At least 25 years of age.
Nomination of elec (For youth sector
party-list tive Effect of Failure to nominees, at least 25
representatives offic Submit a List of years and not more than
e in Nominees 30 years of age)
Each registered the
party, imm Failure to submit the NOTE: Any youth
organization or edia list of five (5) nominees representative who
coalition shall tely before the election attains the age of 30
submit to the prec warrants the during his term shall be
COMELEC not edin cancellation of the allowed to continue in
later than 45 g party’s registration. office until the expiration
days before the elec (Cocofed-Philippines of his term.
election a list of tion; Coconut Producers
names, not less Federation, Inc. v. Disclosure of Names of
than five (5), 4. No change COMELEC, G.R. No. Party-List Nominees
from which shall be 207026, Aug. 6, 2013)
party-list allowed The COMELEC has a
representative after the Qualifications of a constitutional duty to disclose
shall be chosen list shall party-list nominee and release the names of the
in case it have been nominees of the party-list
obtains the submitted 1. Natural- born groups, in accordance with
required to the citizen of the Sec. 7, Art. III of the 1987
number of COMELEC Philippines; Constitution on the right of the
votes. . 2. Registered voter; people to information on
XPN: 3. Resident of the matters of public concern as
Limitations Change Philippines for at complemented by the policy of
may be least 1 year full disclosure and
1. A person allowed immediately transparency in Government.
may be in cases preceding the day (Bantay RA 7941 v. COMELEC,
nominated where: of the election; G.R. No. 177271, G.R. No.
in one (1) a. nom 4. Able to read and 177314, May 4,
list only. inee write; 2007)
2. Only s 5. Bona fide member
persons dies; of the party or Guidelines in
who have b. w organization determining
given their it which he seeks to who may
consent in h represent at least participate in the party-list
writing d 90 days preceding elections
may be r election day; and
names in a 1. Three different groups
the list w NOTE: In the may participate:
3. The list shall s case of sectoral a. National;
not include: in parties, to be a b. Regional; and
a. any w bona fide party-
candidat ri list nominee, one
e for any ti must either
elective n belong to the
27
c. Sectoral pre l nly
parties sent pa through
or any rt its
organizat "ma y, sectoral
ions. rgin w wing
aliz he that must
2. Na ed th separatel
tio and er y register
nal und m under
par erre aj the
tie pre or party-list
s sent or system.
or ed" no The
org sect t, sectoral
ani or. th wing is
zat at by itself
ion 3. All fie an
s polit ld independ
an ical s ent
d part ca sectoral
reg ies nd party; it
ion mus id is linked
al t at to a
par regi es political
tie ster in party
s und le through
or er gi a
org the sl coalition.
ani part ati (2015
zat y- ve Bar)
ion list di
s syst st 4. Sectoral
do em ri parties or
no and ct organization
t do el s may either
ne not ec be
ed fiel ti “marginaliz
to d on ed and
or can s underrepre
ga did ca sented” or
niz ates n lacking in
e in pa “well-
alo legi rti defined
ng slati ci political
sec ve pa constituenc
tor dist te ies.” It is
al rict in enough that
lin elec pa their
es tion rt principal
an s. y- advocacy
d lis pertains to
do A t the special
no p el interests
t o ec and
ne li ti concerns of
ed ti on their sector.
to c s
re a o NOTE: Those

“ folk, parti belong to
m urban es or the sector
a poor, orga they
r indige nizati respectivel
g nous ons y
i cultur that represent.
n al repre
a comm sent 6. The
li unities the nominees of
z , “mar SECTORAL
e handic ginali parties or
d apped, zed organization
a vetera and s that
n ns, unde represent
d and rrepr the
u overse esent “marginalize
n as ed” d and
d worke or underrepres
e rs. those ented” or
r (LUV- repre that
r OF- senti represent
e HIP) ng those who
p parti lack “well-
r Those es or defined
e lackin orga political
s g in nizati constituenci
e “well- ons es,” either
n define that must
t d lack belong to
e politic “well their
d al - respective
” constit defin sectors, or
i uencie ed must have
n s” politi a track
c includ cal record of
l e const advocacy
u profes ituen for their
d sional cies” respective
e s, the must sectors.
l elderl
a y, 7. The nominees
N
b wome of NATIONAL u
m Number of
o n, and and b seats
r the REGIONAL e
r
, youth. parties or
p (PEW organizations o
must be f
e Y) s
a bona-fide e
a
s 5. A t
s
a maj
n orit a
t, y of v
a
f the i
l
i me a
s mbe b
l
h rs of e
to
e sect legisl
r oral ative
29
memb districts × to 189600, June 29, the total number
ers of 0.20 = available 2010) of
their party-
respect representatives.
ive NOTE: If he Accordingly, we
parties changes his political compute the
or party or sectoral number of seats
0. list
organi 8 affiliation within 6 available to party-
zations repre months before an list
. ( sentat
election, he shall representatives
ives
not be eligible for from the number
8. Nation ) nomination as of legislative
al, party-list districts.
region representative
al, and under his new party
sectora or organization.
l (Amores v. HRET,
parties Ibid.)
or
organi seated or Vacancy in the
zations elected seat reserved for
shall into office, party-list
not be not their representatives
disqual parties or
ified if organizatio It shall be
some ns. automatically
of their (Abayon v. occupied by the
nomin HRET, G.R. next representative
ees are No. from the list of
disqual 189466, nominees in the
ified, Feb. 11, order submitted by
provid 2010) the same party to
ed that the COMELEC and
they Effect of such representative
have the shall serve for the
at change in unexpired term. If
least affiliation the list is
one of any exhausted, the
nomin party- list party, organization,
ee represent or coalition
who ative concerned shall
remai submit additional
ns Any nominees.
qualifi elected
ed. party-list Formula
(Ibid.) representa mandated by the
tive who Constitution in
NOTE: It is changes determining the
the parties his party- number of party-
or list group list
organization or sectoral representatives
s which are affiliation
voted for, during his The number of
not their term of seats available to
candidates. office shall party-list
However, it forfeit his representatives is
is the party- seat. based on the ratio
list (Amores v. of party-list
representati HRET, G.R. representatives to
ves who are No.

Simpler coalition their total available seats for
formula: No. of s shall be number of votes allocation as
seats available ranked until all the “additional seats” are
to legislative from the additional seats the maximum seats
districts highest are allocated. reserved under the
DIVIDED BY 4 to the 4. Each party, party-list system less
lowest organization, or the guaranteed seats.
The above based on coalition shall be Fractional seats are
formula allows the entitled to not disregarded in the
the number more than 3 absence of a
corresponding of votes seats. provision in RA 7941
increase in the they allowing for a
number of seats garnered NOTE: In computing rounding off of
available for during the additional seats, the fractional seats.
party- list the guaranteed seats shall (BANAT v. COMELEC,
representatives elections. no longer be included Ibid.)
whenever a 2. The because they have
legislative parties, already been allocated 2% threshold as
district is organiza at one seat each to regards the
created by law. tions, every two-percenter. allocation of
and Thus, the remaining additional seats is
After coalition not valid anymore
prescribing the s
ratio of the receiving The Court strikes down
number of at least the 2% threshold only The COMELEC may, motu
party- list 2% of in relation to the proprio or upon a verified
representatives the total distribution of the complaint of any interested
to the total votes additional seats as party, refuse or cancel, after
number of cast for found in the 2nd clause due notice and hearing, the
representatives the of Sec. 11(b) of RA registration of any national,
, the party-list 7941. The 2% threshold regional or sectoral party,
Constitution system presents an organization or coalition or any
left the manner shall be unwarranted obstacle of the following grounds:
of allocating the entitled to the full
seats available to one implementation of Sec. 1. It is a religious sect or
to party-list guarante 5(2), Art. VI of the denomination,
representatives ed seat Constitution and organization or
to the wisdom each. prevents the attainment association organized for
of the 3. Those of the “broadest religious purposes;
legislature. garnerin possible representation 2. It advocates violence or
(BANAT v. g of party, sectoral or unlawful means to seek its
COMELEC, G.R. sufficient group interests in the goals;
No. 179271, number House of 3. It is a foreign party or
April 21, 2009) of votes, Representatives.” organization;
accordin (BANAT v. COMELEC, 4. It is receiving support
Guidelines in g to the Ibid.) from any foreign
the allocation ranking government, foreign
of seats for in NOTE: The 2% political party, foundation,
party- list paragrap threshold is organization, whether
representative h 1, shall constitutional only directly or through any of
s under Sec. 11 be insofar as the its officers or members, or
of RA 7941 entitled determination of the indirectly through third
(2014 Bar) to guaranteed seat is parties, for partisan
addition concerned. election purposes;
1. The al seats 5. It violates or fails to
parties, in Refusal and/or comply with laws, rules or
organizati proporti Cancellation of regulations relating to
ons, and on to Registration elections
31
6. It declares strikes it Immunities
untruthful Its basic out from
statements defect our ruling It is not for the
in its lies in its case law. benefit of the
petition; character (PGB v. officials; rather, it
7. It has ceased ization of COMELEC is to protect and
to exist for the non- , G.R. No. support the
at least one participa 190529, rights of the
(1) year; tion of a April 29, people by
8. It fails to party-list 2010) ensuring that
participate organizat
in the last ion in an LEGISLATIVE PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND
two (2) election DISQUALIFICATIONS
preceding as similar their
elections; to a Immunity from Arrest representatives
9. It fails to failure to are doing their
obtain at garner Grants jobs according to
least 2% of the 2% the the dictates of
the votes threshold legislator their conscience
cast under party-list s the and to ensure the
the party- vote. privilege attendance of
list system from Congressman.
in the two The arrest
(2) Court while Legislative Privilege
preceding cannot Congress
elections for sustain is “in No member shall
the PGBI’s session” be questioned or
constituenc delisting with held liable in any
y in which it from the respect to forum other than
has roster of offenses his respective
registered registere punishabl Congressional
d parties, e by NOT body for any
The Minero organizat more debate or speech
Ruling is ions or than 6 in Congress or in
erroneous coalition years of any committee
s under imprison thereof. (1987
The Minero the ment, Constitution, Art.
Ruling provides party-list (1987 VI, Sec. 11; Pobre
that a party list system. Constituti v. Sen. Santiago,
organization Clearly, on, Art. August 25, 2009)
which does not the Court VI, Sec.
participate in an cannot 11), Limitations on Legislative
election, allow whether Privilege
necessarily gets, PGBI to or not he
by default, less be is 1. Protection
than 2% of the prejudice attending is only
party-list votes. d by the the against the
Said ruling isan continuin session. forum other
erroneous g validity (People v. than the
application of of an Jalosjos, Congress
Sec. 6(8) of RA erroneou G.R. Nos. itself. Thus,
7941 [Party-List s ruling. 132875- for
System Act]. Thus, the 76, defamatory
Court February remarks,
now 3, 2000) which are
abandon otherwise
s Minero Purpose of privileged, a
and Parliamentary member

m “spe while the same is in acting as a
ay ech session, as well as “dummy” of the
be or bills introduced in actual and
sa deb Congress, whether beneficial owner
nc ate” the same is in of the Hacienda
tio mus session or not, and Binay. As such,
ne t be other acts Tiu filed a
d mad performed by complaint for
by e in Congressmen, damages against
eit perf either in Congress Sen. Trillanes.
he orm or outside the Consequently,
r anc premises housing Sen. Trillanes
th e of its offices, in the asked for the
e thei official discharge of dismissal of the
Se r their duties as case claiming he
na duti members of enjoys
te es Congress and of parliamentary
or as Congressional immunity. Is Sen.
th me Committees duly Trillanes
e mbe authorized to correct?
H rs of perform its
oR Con functions as such, at A: NO. The
, gres the time of the remarks of Sen.
as s. performance of the Trillanes fall
th acts in question. outside the
e Require (Jimenez v. privilege of
ca ments Cabangbang, speech or debate
se for the G.R. No. L-15905, under Sec. 11, Art.
m privilege August 3, 1966) VI of the 1987
ay of Constitution. The
be speech Q: The Senate statements were
. and Committee on clearly not part of
2. Th debate Accountability of any speech
e to Public Officials delivered in the
operate and Investigation Senate or any of
conducted an its committees.
1. Remar Coverage investigation, in They were not
ks or of speech aid of legislation, also spoken
comme or debate regarding the during any
nts are alleged P1.601 debate. It cannot
made It includes billion overpricing likewise be
while utterances of the new 11- successfully
in made by storey Makati City contended that
session Congressm Hall II Parking they were made in
; and en in the Building. During the official
2. Must performan media interviews discharge or
be ce of their in the Senate, performance of
made official particularly Sen. Trillanes’
in functions, during gaps and duties as a
connec such as breaks in the Senator, as the
tion speeches plenary hearings, remarks were not
with delivered, Sen. Trillanes part of or integral
the statements expressed his to the legislative
dischar made, or opinion that process. To
ge of votes cast Antonio Tiu participate in or
official in the halls appears to be a respond to media
duties of “front” or interviews is not
Congress, “nominee” or is an official
33
function of detrimental as Congress “in recess”
any not a compared to the denial
lawmaker; it legislative act, or withdrawal of such If the recess was
is not but “political privilege. called for in between
demanded in nature,” a regular or special
by his sworn outside of the The senator-lawyer’s session, the Congress
duty nor is it ambit of the privilege speech is not is still considered in
a immunity actionable criminally session. But if the
component conferred or be subject to a recess was the 30-
of the under the disciplinary day compulsory
process of Speech or proceeding under the recess, Congress is
enacting Debate Clause Rules of Court. The not in session. (1987
laws. A in the 1987 Court, however, would Constitution, Art. VI,
lawmaker Constitution. be remiss in its duty if Sec. 15)
may well be The privilege it let the Senator’s
able to arises not offensive and Prohibitions
discharge because of the disrespectful language attached to a
his duties statement that tended to degrade legislator during
and legislate made by a the institution pass-by. his term
without lawmaker, but It is imperative on the
having to because it is Court’s part to re-
communicat uttered in instill in Senator/Atty.
e with the furtherance of (Santiago) her duty to
press. A legislation. respect courts of
lawmaker’s (Sen. Antonio justice, especially this
participatio Trillanes vs. Tribunal, and remind
n in media Hon. her anew that
interviews Evangeline parliamentary non-
is Castillo- accountability thus
Marigomen, granted to members of
G.R. No. Congress is not to
223451, protect them against
March 14, prosecutions for their
2018) own benefit, but to
enable them, as the
Purpose of people’s
legislative representatives, to
privilege perform the functions
of their office without
To ensure the fear of being made
effective responsible before the
discharge of courts or other forums
functions of outside the
Congress. congressional hall. It is
intended to protect
NOTE: The members of congress
purpose of the against government
privilege is to pressure and
ensure the intimidation aimed at
effective influencing the
discharge of decision-making
functions of prerogatives of
Congress. The Congress and its
privilege may members. (Pobre v.
be abused but Sen. Defensor-
it is said that Santiago, A.C. No. 7399,
such is not so August 25, 2009)
damaging or

INCOMPATIBLE
FORBIDDEN OFFICE
OFFICE
35
1st sentence of Sec. 2nd sentence of Ethics, Page 34)
13, Art.VI Sec. 13, Art. VI
Senator or any member of HoR 2. Upon assumption of office, all members of
May not hold any Cannot be appointed the Senate and HoR must make a full
other office or to any office which disclosure of their financial and business
employment in the have been created, or interests. They shall notify the House
Government, during the emoluments concerned of a potential conflict in interest
his term without thereof increased that may arise from the filing of a proposed
forfeiting his seat during the term for legislation of which they are authors. (1987
which he was elected Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 12) (2004, 2010
NOTE: After such Bar)
term, and even if he is
re- elected, the Disqualifications attached to Senators and
disqualification no Representatives and their applications
longer applies and he
may therefore be
appointed to the office
Automatically Even if he is willing to
forfeits seat forfeit his seat, he may
upon the not be appointed to
member’s said office
assumption of such Purpose: to prevent
other office trafficking in public
XPN: holds other office.
office in ex-officio
capacity
More of an More of a
inhibition prohibition
Rule on increase in salaries of members of Legal
Congress
Increase in the salaries shall take effect after the

expiration of the full term of all the members of
the Senate and the House of Representatives
approving such increase. (1987 Constitution, Art.
VI, Sec. 10)
Particular inhibitions attached to the

respective offices of Senators and
Representatives
1. From “personally” appearing as counsel

before any court of justice or before the
Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial or
other administrative bodies. (1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 14) (2004 Bar)
NOTE: Since the practice of law covers a

wide range of legislative activities (Cayetano
v. Monsod, G.R. No. 100113, Sept. 3, 1991) the
Senator or member of House of the
Representatives is allowed to engage in
other aspects of the law practice such as the
giving of legal advice to clients, negotiating
contracts in behalf of clients which
necessitates legal knowledge, preparation of
documents and similar others. (Pineda,
DISQUALIFICATION WHEN APPLICABLE
Incompatible Office During his term
If he does so, he forfeits

his seat (1987
Constitution, Art. VI,
Sec. 13)
Forbidden Office If the office was created
or the emoluments
thereof increased
during the term for
which he was elected
(1987 Constitution, Art.
VI, Sec. 13)
Cannot personally During his term of
appear as counsel office (1987
before any court of Constitution, Art. VI,
justice, electoral
DISCIPLINE OF Sec.MEMBERS
14)
tribunal, quasi-
judicial and
Disciplinary power of Congress public officer from frustrating his
administrative
prosecution. It is incidental to the criminal
bodies. (2004 Bar)
Each house may punish its members for proceedings before the court.
Cannot be During his term of
disorderly behavior and, with concurrence of 2/3
financially
of all its members, suspend, for not more than 60 office (1987 sanction on the other
The House-imposed
interested, directly
hand, isConstitution,
a penalty forArt. VI,
days, or expel a member. (1987 Constitution, Art. disorderly behavior.
VI, Sec. 16, par. 3) (1993, 2002 Bar) or indirectly, in any Sec. 14)
contract with or in
Thus, the order of suspension in the Anti-
Determination of disorderly behavior any franchise, or
Graft Law is distinct from the power of the
special privilege
Congress under the Constitution to discipline
granted by the
The House of Representatives is the judge of what its own ranks. (De Venecia Jr., v.
Government. (2004
constitutes disorderly behavior. The courts will Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130240, February 5,
Bar)
not assume jurisdiction in any case which will 2002)
Cannot intervene in When it is for his
amount to an interference by the judicial
any matter before pecuniary benefit or
department with the legislature. (Osmeña v. PROCESS OF LAW-MAKING
any office of the where he may be called
Pendatun, G.R. No. L-17144, October 28, 1960)
Gov’t. (2004 Bar) upon to act on account
of his office. (1987
NOTE: Members of Congress may also be
Constitution, Art. VI,
suspended by the Sandiganbayan or by the Office
Sec. 14)
of the Ombudsman. The suspension in the
Constitution is different from the suspension
prescribed in RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act). The latter is not a penalty but a
preliminary preventive measure and is not
imposed upon the petitioner for misbehavior as a
member of Congress. (Santiago v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001)
Preventive suspension is not a penalty (2015

Bar)
A court-ordered preventive suspension is a

preventive measure that is different and distinct
from the suspension ordered by the HoR for
disorderly behavior which is a penalty. Such
House-imposed sanction is intended to enforce
discipline among its members. (Paredes,
Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118354, August 8,
1995)
NOTE: The suspension under the Anti-Graft Law

is mandatory, imposed not as a penalty but as a
precautionary measure to prevent the accused
2. Presidential veto overridden by 2/3 vote of
all members of both Houses
Rules regarding the passage of bills 3. Failure of the President to veto the bill and
to return it with his objections to the House
1. No bill passed by either House shall become a where it originated, within 30 days after the
law unless it has passed 3 readings on separate date of receipt
days. 4. A bill calling a special election for President
2. Printed copies of the bill in its final form should and Vice-President under Sec. 10. Art. VII
be distributed to the Members 3 days before its becomes a law upon its approval on the
passage third reading and final reading.
3. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment
thereto shall be allowed. One bill-one subject rule
4. The vote on the bill shall be taken immediately
after the last reading of a bill. Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace
5. The yeas and the nays shall be entered in the only one subject. The subject shall be expressed
Journal. in the title of the bill. This rule is mandatory.
XPN: The certification of the President, due to the NOTE: The purposes of such rule are:
necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency, dispenses with the reading 1. To prevent hodgepodge or log-rolling
on separate days and the printing of the bill in the legislation;
final form before its final approval (Tolentino v. 2. To prevent surprise or fraud upon the
Secretary of Finance, G.R. No. 115455, October 30, legislature; and
1995). 3. To fairly apprise the people of the subjects
of legislation. (Central Capiz v. Ramirez, G.R.
Instances when a bill becomes a law (1991, 1993, No. 16197, March 12, 1920)
1996 Bar)
Determination of the sufficiency of the title
1. Approved and signed by the President
It suffices if the title should serve the purpose of

the constitutional demand that it informs the GR: Each reading shall be held on separate days and printed
legislators, the persons interested in the subject copies thereof in its final form shall be distributed to its
of the bill, and the public, of the nature, scope and Members, 3 days before its passage.
consequences of the proposed law and its
operation; thus, prevent surprise or fraud upon XPN: If a bill is certified as urgent by the President as to the
the legislators. necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity
or emergency, the 3 readings can be held on the same day [1987
Test: Whether or not it is misleading; either in Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 26(2)]
referring to or indicating one subject where
another or different one is really embraced in the Reasons for the “three readings on separate days” rule
act, or in omitting any expression or indication of
the real subject or scope of the act. (Lidasan v. To prevent hasty and improvident legislation and afford the
COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28089, Oct. 25, 1967) legislators time to study and deliberate the measures. The two-
fold purpose:
Number of readings before becoming a law
(1996 Bar) 1. To inform the legislators of the matters they shall vote on;
and
During the First Reading, only the title of the bill 2. To give them notice that a measure is in progress through
is read, then it is passed to the proper committee enactment process. (Abas Kida, v. Senate, G.R. No. 196271,
for study. On the Second Reading, the entire text October 18, 2011)
is read, and debates and amendments are held.
On the Third Reading, only the title is read, and Q: Is the supermajority vote requirement under R.A. 9054,
votes are taken immediately thereafter. the second Organic Act of ARMM which reset the regular
elections for the
Each bill must pass 3 readings each in both
Houses. In other words, there must be a total of 6
readings.
ARMM regional officials to the effectively amend RA 9054. Clearly, this
second Monday of September requirement is higher than what the Constitution
2001 unconstitutional by giving requires for the passage of bills and served to
it a character of an irrepealable restrain the plenary powers of Congress to
law? amend, revise or repeal the laws it had passed.
A: YES. The supermajority (2/3) While a supermajority is not a total ban against
voting requirement required under repeal, it is a limitation in excess of what the
Sec. 1, Art. XVII of RA 9054 (second Constitution requires on the passage of bills and
Organic Act of ARMM) must be is constitutionally obnoxious because it
struck down for giving said law the significantly constricts the future legislators’
character of an irrepealable law by room for action and flexibility. (Abas Kida v.
requiring more than what the Senate, G.R. No. 196271, Oct. 18, 2011)
Constitution demands.
NOTE: Every legislative body may modify or
Sec. 16(2), Art. VI of the abolish the acts passed by itself or its
Constitution provides that a predecessors. This legislature cannot bind a
“majority of each House shall future legislature to a particular mode of repeal. It
constitute a quorum to do cannot declare in advance the intent of
business.” In other words, if subsequent legislatures or the effect of
majority of the members of the subsequent legislation upon existing statutes.
House of Representatives or the (Abas Kida v. Senate, ibid.)
Senate are present, these bodies
have the quorum needed to conduct The Bicameral Conference Committee
business and hold session. Within a
quorum, a vote of majority is In a bicameral system, bills are independently
generally sufficient to enact laws or processed by both Houses of Congress. It is not
approve acts. unusual that the final version approved by one
House differs from what has been approved by
In contrast, Sec. 1, Art. XVII of RA the other.
9054 requires a vote of no less than
2/3 of the Members of the House of The “conference committee,” consisting of
Representatives and of the Senate, members nominated from both Houses, is an
voting separately, in order to extra-constitutional creation of Congress whose
function is to propose to Congress ways of

settling, reconciling or threshing out conflicting Reconcile or harmonize disagreeing
provisions found in the Senate version and in the provisions
House version of a bill. (Opinion of J. Callejo, Sr.,
ABAKADA The changes introduced by the Bicameral
v. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056, September1, 2005) Conference Committee are meant only to
reconcile and harmonize the disagreeing
Extent of the power of the Committee provisions for it does not inject any idea or
intent that is wholly foreign to the subject
The conferees are not limited to reconciling the embraced by the original provisions.
differences in the bill but may introduce new
provisions germane to the subject matter or may To reconcile or harmonize disagreeing
report out an entirely new bill on the subject. provisions, the Bicameral Conference
(Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No, 115455, Committee may then (a) adopt the specific
August 25, 1994) provisions of either the House bill or Senate
bill, (b) decide that neither provisions in the
Scope of the powers of the Committee House bill or the provisions in the Senate bill
would be carried into the final form of the bill,
1. Adopt the bill entirely and/or (c) try to arrive at a compromise
2. Amend or Revise between the disagreeing provisions.
3. Reconcile the House and Senate Bills
4. Propose entirely new provisions not found Thus, the changes made by the Bicameral
in either the Senate or House bills Conference Committee in the versions passed
by the Senate and House of the RVAT Law such as
the inclusion of the stand-by authority of the
President, omission of the no pass-on provision Every bill passed by Congress must be presented
included in both Senate and House versions, to the President for approval or veto. In the
inclusion of provisions on other kinds of taxes absence of presentment to the President, no bill
and VAT only found in the Senate bill are valid. passed by Congress can become a law.
(Escudero v. Purisima, G.R. No. 168463, September
1, 2005; ABAKADA v. Ermita, GR 168056, Rule on presidential veto
September
1, 2005) GR: If the President disapproves a bill enacted by
Congress, he should veto the entire bill. He is not
Presidential Veto and Congressional allowed to veto separate items of a bill.
Override Rule on presentment XPN: Item-veto is allowed in case of

Appropriation, Revenue, and Tariff bills [1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27(2)]. (1991, 2010
Bar)
XPNs to the XPN:

1. Doctrine of inappropriate provisions – A
provision that is constitutionally
inappropriate for an appropriation bill
may be singled out for veto even if it is
not an appropriation or revenue item
(Gonzales v. Macaraig, G.R. No. 87636,
Nov. 19, 1990).
2. Executive impoundment – Refusal of the
President to spend funds already
allocated by Congress for specific
purpose. It is the failure to spend or
obligate budget authority of any type.
(Philconsa v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105,
August 19, 1994)
Appropriation Item or Line-item
An indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated

purpose. It is indivisible because the amount
cannot be divided for any purpose other than the
specific purpose stated in the item. It is an item,
which, in itself, is a specific appropriation of
money, not some general provision of law, which
happens to be put into an appropriation bill.
An item of appropriation must be an item

characterized by singular correspondence –
meaning an allocation of a specified singular
amount for a specified singular purpose,
otherwise known as a "line-item." (Araullo v.
Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
NOTE: For the President to exercise his item-veto

power, it is necessary that there exists a proper
"item" which may be the object of the veto.
Consequently, to ensure that the President may
be able to exercise said power, the appropriations
bill must contain "specific appropriations of
money" and not only "general provisions" which
provide
for parameters of appropriation. (Araullo v. Aquino such

III, ibid.)
Instances of pocket veto (2010 Bar)
1. When the President fails to act on a bill; and

2. When the reason he does not return the bill
to the Congress is that Congress is not in
session.
Pocket veto is NOT applicable in the

Philippines because inaction by the President for
30 days never produces a veto even if Congress is
in recess. The President must still act to veto the
bill and communicate his veto to Congress
without need of returning the vetoed bill with his
veto message.
Rider
A provision in a bill which does not relate to a

particular appropriation stated in the bill. Since it
is an invalid provision under Art. VI, Sec. 25[2],
the President may veto it as an item.
Congressional override
If, after reconsideration, 2/3 of all members of

such House agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent
to the other House by which it shall likewise be
reconsidered and if approved by 2/3 of all
members of that House, it shall become a law
without the need of presidential approval.
QUORUM AND VOTING MAJORITIES
Quorum
Such number which enables a body to transact its

business and gives such body the power to pass a
law or ordinance or any valid act that is binding.
In our constitution, it is required that the quorum
be a majority of each house.
NOTE: In computing quorum, members who are

outside the country and, thus, outside of each
House’s jurisdiction are not included. The basis
for determining the existence of a quorum in the
Senate shall be the total number of Senators who
are within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate.
(Avelino v. Cuenco, G.R. No. L-2821, March 4, 1949)
Effect if there is no quorum
Each House may adjourn from day to day and

may compel the attendance of absent members in
manner and under such penalties as voting separately and voting jointly
each House may provide.
SEPARATE JOINT
NOTE: The members of the  Choosing the  When revoking or
Congress cannot compel absent President in case of extending the
members to attend sessions if the a tie (1987 proclamation
reason of absence is a legitimate Constitution, Art. suspending the
one. The confinement of a VII, Sec. 4). privilege of writ of
Congressman charged with a non-  Determining habeas corpus
bailable offense is certainly President’s inability (1987
authorized by law and has to discharge the Constitution, Art.
constitutional foundations. (People powers and duties VII, Sec. 18).
v. Jalosjos, G.R. No. 132875-76, of his office (1987  When revoking or
February 3, 2000) Constitution, Art. extending the
VII, Sec. 11). declaration of
Instances when the Constitution  Confirming martial law(1987
requires that the yeas and nays of nomination of Vice- Constitution, Art.
the Members be taken every time President (1987 VII, Sec. 18).
a House has to vote Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec. 9).
1. Upon the last and third readings of a  Declaring the
bill existence of a state
(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 26, of war in joint
par. 2); session (1987
2. At the request of 1/5 of the members Constitution, Art.
present VI, Sec. 23, Par. 1).
(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec.  Proposing
16, par. 4); and Constitutional
3. In repassing a bill over the amendments (1987
veto of the President. (1987 Constitution, Art.
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27, XVII, Sec. 1).
par. 1)
Instances when Congress votes by majority
Instances when Congress is
To suspend or expel 2/3 of all its
a member in members (1987
INSTANCES WHEN NUMBER OF VOTES accordance with its Constitution, Art. VI,
CONGRESS VOTES REQUIRED rules and Sec. 16, Par. 3)
Elect the Senate Majority vote of all its proceedings
President or House respective members To enter the Yeas 1/5 of the members
of Representatives (1987 Constitution, and Nays in the present
Speaker Art. VI , Sec. 16, Par. 1) Journal (1987 Constitution,
Commission on Majority vote of all Art. VI, Sec. 16, Par. 4)
Appointments ruling the members (1987 To declare the 2/3 of both houses
Constitution, Art. VI, existence of a state in joint session
Sec. 18) of war voting separately
Passing a law Majority of all the (1987 Constitution,
granting any tax members of Congress Art. VI, Sec. 23)
exemption (1987 Constitution,
Art. VI , Sec. 28, Par. 4) Non-intervention of courts in the
implementation of the internal rules of
Instances when Congress votes other than Congress
majority
As part of their inherent power, Congress can
INSTANCES WHEN NUMBER OF VOTES determine their own rules. Hence, the courts
CONGRESS VOTES REQUIRED cannot intervene in the implementation of
these rules insofar as they affect the members
of Congress. (Osmeña v. Pendatun G.R. No L-
17144, October 28, 1960)
Majority vote of all respective members. (1987
Elected officers of Congress Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 16, par. 1)
1. Senate President Regular session of Congress

2. Speaker of the House
3. Such officers as deemed by each house to be Congress convenes once every year on the 4th
necessary Monday of July, unless otherwise provided for by
law. It continues in session for as long as it sees
Vote required in election of officers fit, until 30 days before the opening of the next
regular session, excluding Saturdays, Sundays,
and legal holidays. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec.
15) (1996 Bar)
Instances when there are special sessions
1. Due to vacancies in the offices of the

President and Vice President at 10 o’clock
a.m. on the third day after the vacancies
(1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 10)
2. To decide on the disability of the President
because a majority of all the members of the
cabinet have “disputed” his assertion that he
is able to discharge the powers and duties of
his office (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 11)
3. To revoke or extend the Presidential
Proclamation of Martial Law or suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
4. Called by the President at any time when
Congress is not in session (1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 15)
5. To declare the existence of a state of war in a
joint session, by vote of 2/3 of both Houses
(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 23, par. 1)
6. When the Congress acts as the Board of
Canvassers for the Presidential and Vice-
Presidential elections (1987 Constitution,
Art. VII, Sec. 4)
7. During impeachment proceedings (1987
Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3, par. 4 and 6).
In a special session, the Congress may consider

“general legislation or only such subjects as the
President may designate”. In a regular session,
“the power of the Congress is not circumscribed
except by limitations imposed by organic law.”
(Cruz and Cruz, Philippine Political Law, p. 241)
Mandatory recess
The 30-day period prescribed before the opening

of the next regular session, excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays. This is the minimum
period of recess and may be lengthened by the
Congress in its discretion. It may, however, be
called in special session at any time by the
President. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 15)
Constitutional limitations on the legislative’s
Rule on Adjournment power to enact laws on appropriation,
revenue and tariff (ART) measures
Neither House during the sessions of the
Congress shall, without the consent of the other, 1. Bills which shall originate exclusively in the
adjourn for more than 3 days, nor to any other HoR, but the Senate may propose or concur
place than that in which the two Houses shall be with amendments: (APRIL) (1996 Bar)
sitting. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 16, par. 5) a. Appropriation,
b. Revenue or tariff
NOTE: The phrase “any other place” as here used c. authorizing Increase of the public debt,
refers not to the building but to the political unit d. Local application, and
where the two Houses may be sitting. Hence, if e. Private bills (1987 Constitution, Art. VI,
both Houses are sitting in the same building in Sec. 24)
the City of Manila, either of them may sit in
another building in the same city without getting NOTE: It does not prohibit the filing in the Senate
the consent of the other. (Cruz, Philippine Political of a substitute bill, so long as the action by the
Law, p. 250) Senate is withheld pending the receipt of the
House bill. (Tolentino v. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No.
Adjournment sine die 115455, Aug. 25, 1994)
An interval between the session of one Congress 2. The President shall have the power to veto
and that of another. any item/s in an ART bill, but the veto shall
not affect the item/s to which he does not
APPROPRIATION AND RE-ALIGNMENT object. [1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 27(2)]
Appropriation bill Power of appropriation
Primarily made for the appropriation of a sum of The spending power, also called the “power of
money from the public treasury. the purse”, belongs to Congress, subject only to
the veto power of the President. It carries with it
NOTE: A bill creating a new office, and the power to specify the project or activity to be
appropriating funds for it is not an appropriation funded under the appropriation law.
bill.
Appropriation law
Revenue bill
A statute enacted for the specific purpose of
Specifically designed to raise money or revenue authorizing the release of public funds from the
through imposition or levy. treasury.
Bill of local application Classifications of appropriations
A bill limited to specific localities, such as the 1. General appropriation law – Passed annually,
creation of a town. Hence, it is one involving and intended for the financial operations of
purely local or municipal matters, e.g. the charter the entire government during one fiscal
of a city. period;
Private bills Contains an estimate of revenues and

funding sources, which are usually (1) taxes,
Those which affect private persons, such as a bill (2) capital revenues (like proceeds from the
granting citizenship to a specific foreigner, or a sales of assets), (3) grants, (4) extraordinary
bill granting honorary citizenship to a income (like dividends of government
distinguished foreigner. corporations) and (5) borrowings. (Araullo
v. Aquino III, G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
Tariff bills
GAA is not self-executory
Those that specify the rates or duties to be
imposed on imported articles.
The execution of the GAA was still subject to
a program of expenditure to be approved by 1. Congress may not increase appropriations
the President, and such approved program recommended by the President for the
of expenditure was the basis for the release operations of the government;
of funds. The mere approval by Congress of 2. Form, content and manner of preparation of
the GAA does not instantly make the funds budget shall be provided by law;
available for spending by the Executive 3. No provision or enactment shall be
Department. The funds authorized for embraced in the bill unless it releases
disbursement under the GAA are usually still specifically to some particular
to be collected during the fiscal year. Thus, it appropriations therein;
is important that the release of funds be 4. Procedure for approving appropriations for
duly authorized, identified, or sanctioned to Congress shall be the same as that of other
avert putting the legitimate Program, departments in order to prevent sub-rosa
Activity, Projects (PAPs) of the Government appropriations by Congress; and
in fiscal jeopardy. (TESDA v. COA, G.R. No. 5. Prohibition against transfer of
196418, Feb. 10, 2015) appropriations from one branch (judiciary,
legislative, and executive) to another.
NOTE: The requirement of availability of Nonetheless, the following may, by law, be
funds before the execution of a government authorized to augment any item in the
contract, however, has been modified by general appropriations law for their
R.A. No. 9184 [Government Procurement respective offices from savings in other
Reform Act] which requires not only the items of their respective appropriations
sufficiency of funds at the time of the signing (Doctrine of Augmentation):
of the contract, but also upon the
commencement of the procurement process. a. President
Unless R.A. No. 9184 is amended or b. Senate President
repealed, all future government projects c. Speaker of the HoR
must first have a sufficient appropriation d. Chief Justice
before engaging the procurement activity. e. Heads of Constitutional Commissions
(Jacomille v. Abaya, G.R. No. 212381, April 22, [1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. (5)];
2015)
Doctrine of Augmentation (1996, 1998 Bar)
2. Special appropriation law – Designed for a
specific purpose. GR: No law shall be passed authorizing any
transfer of appropriations.
Implied limitations on appropriation power
XPN: The following may, by law, be authorized to
1. Must specify a public purpose; augment any item in the general appropriations
2. Sum authorized for release must be law for their respective offices from savings in
determinate, or at least determinable. other items of their respective appropriations in
(Guingona v. Carague, G.R. No. 94571, April accordance with Doctrine of Augmentation:
22, 1991)
1. President;
Constitutional limitations on special 2. President of the Senate;
appropriations measures 3. Speaker of the House of Representatives;
4. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and
1. Must specify public purpose for which the 5. Heads of Constitutional Commissions.
sum was intended; (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 25[5];
2. Must be supported by funds actually Demetria v. Alba, G.R. No. 71977, February
available as certified by the National 27, 1987 and Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No.
Treasurer or to be raised by corresponding 209287, July 1, 2014)
revenue proposal therein [1987 6. Prohibitions against appropriations for
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 25(4)]. sectarian benefit; and
7. Automatic re-appropriation– If, by the end
Constitutional rules on General of any fiscal year, the Congress shall have
Appropriations Laws failed to pass the general appropriations bill
for the ensuing fiscal year, the general
appropriations law for the preceding fiscal
year shall be deemed reenacted and shall
remain in force and effect until the general as a special discretionary fund of the Governor, to be spent
appropriations bill is passed by the Congress by him in leading a pilgrimage of his
[1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 25(7)].
Ratio: For the purpose of preventing the

disruption in government operations and
unauthorized disbursement of funds
Budget
Financial program of the national government for

the designated calendar year, providing for the
estimates of receipts of revenues and
expenditures.
Budget proposal
The President shall propose the budget and

submit it to Congress. It shall indicate the
expenditures, sources of financing, receipts from
previous revenues and proposed revenue
measures. It will serve as a guide for Congress:
1. In fixing the appropriations;

2. In determining the activities which should be
funded (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 22).
NOTE: The proposed budget is not final. The

President may propose the budget but still the
final say on the matter of appropriation is lodged
in the Congress. (Philippine Constitution
Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August
19, 1994)
Modification of Congress of the budget

proposal
Congress may only reduce but not increase the

budget.
Each legislator cannot exercise the

appropriation power of the Congress
Legislative power shall be exclusively exercised

by the body to which the Constitution has
conferred the same. The power to appropriate
must be exercised only through legislation,
pursuant to Sec. 29(1), Art. VI of the Constitution.
(Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19,
2013)
Q: The budget of a predominantly Muslim

province provides the Governor with a certain
amount as his discretionary funds. Recently,
however, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
passed a resolution appropriating P100,000
province mates to Mecca, Saudi the disbursement is made by resolution of a local
Arabia, Islam's holiest city. legislative body and not by Congress does not
make it any less offensive to the Constitution.
Philconsa, on constitutional Above all, the resolution constitutes a clear
grounds, has filed suit to nullify violation of the Non-establishment Clause of the
the resolution of the Constitution.
Sangguniang Panlalawigan
giving the special discretionary Deficit in the final budget cannot be
fund to the Governor for the automatically taken from the National
stated purpose. How would you Treasury
decide the case? Give your
reasons. Congress will still have to enact a law before
money can be paid out of the National Treasury
A: The resolution is unconstitutional because: [Art. VI, Sec. 29(1)].
1. It violates Art. VI, Sec. 29(2) Q: Daraga Press filed with COA a money claim
which prohibits the for the payment of textbooks it allegedly
appropriation of public money delivered to DepEd-ARMM. COA denied the
or property, directly or money claim because it found no
indirectly, for the use, benefit appropriation for the purchase of said
or support of any system of textbooks. Is COA’s denial correct?
religion;
2. It contravenes Art. VI, Sec. A: YES. There was no appropriation for the
25(6) which limits the purchase of the subject textbooks as the Special
appropriation of discretionary Allotment Release Order (SARO) in the amount of
funds only for public purposes; P63,638,750.00, upon which Daraga Press
and anchors its claim, pertains to the payment of
3. It constitutes a clear violation personal services or salaries of the teachers, not
of the Non- establishment for the purchase of textbooks. Since there was no
Clause of the Constitution. appropriation for the purchase of the subject
textbooks, the respondent COA had reason to
NOTE: The use of discretionary deny the money claim as Section 29(1), Article VI
funds for a purely religious purpose of the 1987 Constitution provides that: "No
is unconstitutional, and the fact that money shall
be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance appropriations law for their respective
of an appropriation made by law." (Daraga Press, offices. (Araullo, et.al v. Aquino III, et. al.
Inc. G.R. No. 209287, July 1, 2014)
v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 201042, June 16,
2015) Q: The Disbursement Acceleration
Program (DAP) was instituted by the
Requisites for the valid transfer of Department of Budget and Management in
appropriated funds 2011 to ramp up spending after sluggish
disbursements had caused the growth of
The transfer of appropriated funds, to be valid the gross domestic product (GDP) to slow
under Art. VI, Section 25(5), must be made upon a down. It allowed the Executive to allocate
concurrence of the following requisites, namely: public money pooled from programmed
and unprogrammed funds of its various
1. There is a law authorizing the President, the agencies notwithstanding the original
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the revenue targets being exceeded. In a
House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of petition, the constitutionality of the DAP
the Supreme Court, and the heads of the was challenged, claiming that it
Constitutional Commissions to transfer funds contravened Section 29(1), Art. VI of the
within their respective offices; 1987 Constitution under the guise of the
2. The funds to be transferred are savings President exercising his constitutional
generated from the appropriations for their authority under Section 25(5) of the 1987
respective offices; and (3) The purpose of the Constitution to transfer funds out of
transfer is to augment an item in the general savings to augment the appropriations of
offices within the Executive Branch of the
Government. Is the DAP constitutional? were being transferred to the Legislative and
other non-Executive agencies.
A: NO. The transfers made through the DAP were
unconstitutional. It is true that the President (and Further, transfers “within their respective offices”
even the heads of the other branches of the also contemplate realignment of funds to an
government) are allowed by the Constitution to existing project in the GAA. Under the DAP, even
make realignment of funds, however, such though some projects were within the Executive,
transfer or realignment should only be made these projects are non-existent insofar as the GAA
“within their respective offices”. Thus, no cross- is concerned because no funds were appropriated
border transfers/augmentations may be allowed. to them in the GAA. Although some of these
But under the DAP, this was violated because projects may be legitimate, they are still non-
funds appropriated by the GAA for the Executive existent under the GAA because they were not
provided for by the GAA. As such, transfer to such
projects is unconstitutional and is without legal
basis.
These DAP transfers are not “savings” contrary to

what was being declared by the Executive. Under
the definition of “savings” in the GAA, savings
only occur, among other instances, when there is
an excess in the funding of a certain project once
it is completed, finally discontinued, or finally
abandoned. The GAA does not refer to “savings”
as funds withdrawn from a slow-moving project.
Thus, since the statutory definition of savings was
not complied with under the DAP, there is no
basis at all for the transfers. Further, savings
should only be declared at the end of the fiscal
year. But under the DAP, funds are already being
withdrawn from certain projects in the middle of
the year and then being declared as “savings” by
the Executive particularly by the DBM.
Unprogrammed funds from the GAA cannot be

used as money source for the DAP because under
the law, such funds may only be used if there is a
certification from the National Treasurer to the
effect that the revenue collections have exceeded
the revenue targets. In this case, no such
certification was secured before unprogrammed
funds were used. (Araullo v. Aquino III, G.R. No.
209287, February 3, 2015)
LEGISLATIVE INQUIRIES AND OVERSIGHT

FUNCTIONS
Legislative Inquiries/Inquiries In Aid Of

Legislation
The Senate or the House of Representatives or

any of its respective committees may conduct
inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with
its duly published rules of procedure. The rights
of persons appearing in, or affected by, such
inquiries shall be respected. (1987 Constitution,
Art. VI, Sec. 21)
Matters that can be the subject of inquiries in
aid of legislation
5. Congress may no longer punish the witness
Indefinite. The field of legislation is very wide, in contempt after its final adjournment. The
and because of such, the field of inquiry is also basis of the power to impose such penalty is
very broad and may cover administrative, social, the right to self-preservation. And such right
economic, political problem (inquiries), discipline is enforceable only during the existence of
of members, etc. Suffice it to say that it is the legislature. (Lopez v. Delos Reyes, G.R. No.
“intrinsic” in andco-extensive with legislative L-34361, Nov. 5, 1930)
power. (Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-3820, July 6. Congress may no longer inquire into the
18, 1950) same justiciable controversy already before
the court. (Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon
“In aid of legislation” does not mean that there is Committee, G.R. No. 89914, November 20,
pending legislation regarding the subject of the 1991)
inquiry. In fact, investigation may be needed for
purposes of proposing future legislation. Q: Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago
introduced Proposed Senate Resolution (PSR)
NOTE: If the stated purpose of the investigation is No. 455 directing the conduct of an inquiry, in
to determine the existence of violations of the aid of legislation, on the anomalous losses
law, the investigation is no longer “in aid of incurred by POTC, PHILCOMSAT and PHC and
legislation” but “in aid of prosecution.” This the mismanagement committed by their
violates the principle of separation of powers and respective board of directors. Can the persons
is beyond the scope of Congressional powers. involved in the legislative inquiry question
the haste with which the Senate approved
Limitations on legislative investigation their Committee Report? Can said persons
invoke their basic right to counsel?
1. The persons appearing in or affected by
such legislative inquiries shall be respected. A: NO. The Senate or the House of
2. The Rules of procedures to be followed in Representatives or any of its respective
such inquiries shall be published for the committees may conduct inquiries in aid of
guidance of those who will be summoned. legislation in accordance with its duly published
This must be strictly followed so that the rules of procedure. The wide latitude given to
inquiries are confined only to the legislative Congress with respect to these legislative
purpose and to avoid abuses. inquiries has long been settled, otherwise, Article
VI, Section 21 would be rendered pointless. The
NOTE: It is incumbent upon the Senate, right to be assisted by counsel can only be
HOR, or any of its respective committee to invoked by a person under custodial investigation
publish the rules for its legislative inquiries suspected for the commission of a crime, and
in each Congress or otherwise make the therefore attaches only during such custodial
published rules clearly state that the same investigation. (Philcomsat Holdings Corp. vs.
shall be effective in subsequent Congresses Senate, G.R. No. 180308, June 19, 2012, PER J.
or until they are amended or repealed to PERLAS- BERNABE)
sufficiently put the public on notice.
Publication of said rules in the internet Q: Sen. Rodolfo Diaz accused the Vice
cannot be considered as compliance with Chairman of the Standard Chartered Bank
this constitutional requirement. (SCB) of violating the Securities Regulation
Code for selling unregistered foreign
3. The investigation must be in aid of securities. This has led the Senate to conduct
legislation. investigation in aid of legislation. SCB refused
4. Congress may not summon the President as to attend the investigation proceedings
witness or investigate the latter in view of claiming criminal and civil cases involving the
the doctrine of separation of powers except same issues were pending in courts. Decide.
in impeachment cases.
A: The mere filing of a criminal or administrative
NOTE: It is the President’s prerogative, whether complaint before a court or a quasi-judicial body
to divulge or not the information, which he should not automatically bar the conduct of
deems confidential or prudent in the public legislative investigation. Otherwise, it would be
interest. extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry
by
Congress through the convenient ploy of privilege speech, Senator urged the Senate “to
instituting a criminal or an administrative immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid
complaint. Thus, the Vice Chairman of SCB is not of
correct in refusing to attend the investigation
proceeding on the ground that criminal and civil
cases involving the same issues are pending in
courts. (Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate, G.R.
No. 167173, December 27, 2007)
Distinction between Standard Chartered Bank

v. Senate and Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee
It is true that in Bengzon, the Court declared that

the issue to be investigated was one over which
jurisdiction had already been acquired by the
Sandiganbayan, and to allow the Senate Blue
Ribbon Committee to investigate the matter
would create the possibility of conflicting
judgments; and that the inquiry into the same
justiciable controversy would be an
encroachment on the exclusive domain of judicial
jurisdiction that had set in much earlier.
There are a number of cases already pending in

various courts and administrative bodies
involving Standard Chartered Bank, relative to
the alleged sale of unregistered foreign securities.
There is a resemblance between this case and
Bengzon. However, the similarity ends there.
Central to the Court’s ruling in Bengzon – that the

Senate Blue Ribbon Committee was without any
constitutional mooring to conduct the legislative
investigation – was the Court’s determination
that the intended inquiry was not in aid of
legislation. The Court found that the speech of
Senator Enrile, which sought such investigation,
contained no suggestion of any contemplated
legislation; it merely called upon the Senate to
look into possible violations of Sec. 5, RA No.
3019. Thus, the Court held that the requested
probe failed to comply with a fundamental
requirement of Sec. 21, Art. VI.
Unfortunately for SCB, this distinguishing factual

milieu in Bengzon does not obtain in the instant
case. The unmistakable objective of the
investigation, as set forth in the said resolution,
exposes the error in SCB’s allegation that the
inquiry, as initiated in a privilege speech by the
very same Senator Enrile, was simply “to
denounce the illegal practice committed by a
foreign bank in selling unregistered foreign
securities.” This fallacy is made more glaring
when we consider that, at the conclusion of his
legislation, so as to prevent the occurrence of a
similar fraudulent activity in the future.” Further, the Court rules that the legislative
(Standard Chartered Bank v. Senate, G.R. No. 167173, inquiry of the Senate terminates on two
December 27, 2007) instances:
Contempt powers of Congress First, upon the approval or disapproval of the

Committee Report. Evidently, the Committee
Even if the Constitution only provides that Congress Report is the culmination of the legislative
may punish its members for disorderly behavior or inquiry. Its approval or disapproval signifies the
expel the same, it is not an exclusion of power to end of such legislative inquiry and it is now up to
hold other persons in contempt. the Senate whether or not to act upon the said
Committee Report in the succeeding order of
Q: In the exercise of its power to investigate in aid of business. At that point, the power of contempt
legislation, can Congress cite a person in contempt simultaneously ceases and the detained witness
and detain him indefinitely? should be released. As the legislative inquiry
ends, the basis for the detention of the
A: NO. The Court finds that the period of recalcitrant witness likewise ends.
imprisonment under the inherent power of contempt
by the Senate during inquiries in aid of legislation Second, the legislative inquiry of the Senate also
should only last until the termination of the terminates upon the expiration of one (1)
legislative inquiry under which the said power is Congress. As stated in Neri, all pending matters
invoked or when Congress adjourns sine die. If and proceedings, such as unpassed bills and even
Congress decides to extend the period of legislative investigations, of the Senate are
imprisonment for the contempt committed by a considered terminated upon the expiration of
witness beyond the duration of the legislative that Congress and it is merely optional on the
inquiry or after it has already adjourned, then it may Senate of the succeeding Congress to take up such
file a criminal case under the existing statute or unfinished matters, not in the same status, but as
enact a new law to increase the definite period of if presented for the first time. Again, while the
imprisonment. Senate is a continuing institution, its proceedings
are terminated upon the expiration of that jurisprudentially referred to as judicial privilege as implied
Congress at the final adjournment of its last from the exercise of judicial power expressly vested in one
session. Hence, as the legislative inquiry ends Supreme Court and lower courts created by law. [Agcaoli v.
upon that expiration, the imprisonment of the Farinas, GR No. 232395, July 3, 2017]
detained witnesses likewise ends. (Balag vs.
Senate, G.R. No. 234608, July 03, 2018) Legislative contempt vis-à-vis pardoning power of the
President
Q: Can Congress issue a subpoena to compel
attendance of Justices of the Court of Appeals Legislative contempt is a limitation on the President’s power to
in its investigation in-aid of legislation, and pardon by virtue of the doctrine of separation of powers.
cite them in contempt should they refuse to
appear? Question Hour
A: NO. Congressional powers cannot be used to Where the heads of departments may, upon their own initiative,
deprive the Supreme Court of its Constitutional with the consent of the President, or upon the request of either
duty to supervise judges of lower courts in the House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before
performance of their official duties. The fact and be heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their
remains that the CA Justices are non-impeachable departments. Written questions shall be submitted to the
officers. As such, authority over them primarily President of the Senate or the Speaker of the HoR at least 3 days
belongs to the Supreme Court and to no other. before their scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be
The principle of separation of powers also serves limited to written questions, but it may cover matters related
as one of the basic postulates for exempting the thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so
Justices, officials and employees of the Judiciary requires and the President so states in writing, the appearance
and for excluding the Judiciary's privileged and shall be conducted in executive session. (1987 Constitution, Art.
confidential documents and information from any VI, Sec. 22)
compulsory processes which very well includes
the Congress' power of inquiry in aid of
legislation. Such exemption has been
Scope of the power of oversight
Question hour vs. Legislative investigation
1. Monitor bureaucratic compliance with
LEGISLATIVE program objectives;
QUESTION HOUR
INVESTIGATION 2. Determine whether agencies are properly
(SEC. 22, ART. VI)
(SEC. 21, ART. VI) administered;
As to persons who may appear 3. Eliminate executive waste and dishonesty;
4. Prevent executive usurpation of legislative
Only a department
Any person authority; and
head
5. Assess executive conformity with the
As to who conducts the investigation congressional perception of public interest.
Committees/Entire (Opinion of J. Puno, Macalintal v. COMELEC,
Entire body Ibid)
Body
As to subject matter Bases of oversight power of Congress
Matters related to the Any matter for the
department only purpose of legislation 1. Intrinsic in the grant of legislative power
itself;
Oversight power of Congress 2. Integral to the system of checks and
balances; and
Embraces all activities undertaken 3. Inherent in a democratic system of
by Congress to enhance its government.
understanding of and influence
over the implementation of Categories of Congressional Oversight
legislation it has enacted. It Functions
concerns post-enactment measures
undertaken by Congress. (Opinion 1. Scrutiny — to determine economy and
of J. Puno, Macalintal v. COMELEC, efficiency of the operation of government
G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003) activities.
2.
Congress may request information and 3. Congressional Investigation — Involves a

report from the other branches of more intense digging of facts through
government and give recommendations or inquiries in aid of legislation under Sec.
pass resolutions for consideration of the 21, Art. VI.
agency involved through:
4. Legislative Supervision — most
a. Power of appropriation and budget encompassing form; connotes a
hearing (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, continuing and informed awareness on
Sec. 22) the part of congressional committee
b. Question Hour (1987 Constitution, regarding executive operations in a given
Art. VI, Sec. 22) administrative area It allows Congress to
c. Power of Confirmation (1987 scrutinize the exercise of delegated law-
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 18) making authority, and permits Congress
to retain part of that delegated authority
But legislative scrutiny does not end in through:
budget hearings. Congress can ask the heads
of departments to appear before and be Legislative veto – Congress retains a
heard by either the House on any matter “right” or “power” to approve or
pertaining to their department. disapprove any regulation enacted by
administrative body before it takes effect.
Likewise, Congress exercises legislative It is in the form of an inward-turning
scrutiny thru its power of confirmation to delegation designed to attach a
find out whether the nominee possesses the congressional leash to an agency to which
necessary qualifications, integrity and Congress has by law initially delegated
probity required of all public servants. broad powers. (ABAKADA Guro Party-list
v. Purisima, G.R. No. 166715, Aug. 14, 2008)
Legislative veto violates the doctrine of not it conformed to the law, Congress arrogated
separation of powers, thus, unconstitutional judicial power unto itself, a power exclusively
vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution.
In exercising discretion to approve or disapprove Thus, violating the doctrine of separation of
the IRR based on a determination of whether or powers.
From the moment the law becomes effective, any

provision of law that empowers Congress or any
of its members to play any role in the
implementation or enforcement of the law
violates the principle of separation of powers and
is thus unconstitutional. (ABAKADA Guro Party-
list v. Purisima, Ibid.)
Senate is not allowed to continue the conduct

of legislative inquiry without a duly published
rules of procedure
The phrase “duly published rules of procedure”

requires the Senate of every Congress to publish
its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid
of legislation because every Senate is distinct
from the one before it or after it. (Garcillano v.
HoR Committee on Public Information, G.R. No.
170338, December 23, 2008)
Invalidity of Publication in the Internet
The Electronic Commerce Act of 2009 merely

recognizes the admissibility in evidence of
electronic data messages and/or documents. It
does not make the internet a medium for
publishing laws, rules and regulations.
(Garcillano
v. HoR Committee on Public Information, ibid.)
Publication of the internal rules of Congress
The Constitution does not require publication of

the internal rules of the House or Senate. Since
rules of the House or Senate affect only their
members, such rules need not be published,
unless such rules expressly provide for their
publication before the rules can take effect.
(Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the Whole, G.R.
No. 187714, March 8, 2011)
Q: During a hearing of the Senate Committee

of the Whole, some proposed amendments to
the Rules of the Ethics Committee that would
constitute the Rules of the Senate Committee
of the Whole were adopted. Senator Chi raised
as an issue the need to publish the proposed
amended Rules of the Senate Committee of the
Whole, as directed by the amended Rules
itself. However, the Senate Committee of the
Whole proceeded without publication of the
amended Rules. Is the publication of the Rules of the
Senate Committee of the Whole required for

their effectivity? POWER OF IMPEACHMENT
A: YES. The Rules must be published before the Steps in the impeachment process (2012 Bar)
Rules can take effect. Thus, even if publication is
not required under the Constitution, publication Constitution provides that the House of
of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole Representatives shall have the exclusive power to
is required because the Rules expressly mandate initiate all cases of impeachment. (1987
their publication. To comply with due process Constitution, Art XI)
requirements, the Senate must follow its own
internal rules if the rights of its own members are 1. Initiating impeachment case
affected. (Pimentel v. Senate Committee of the a. Verified complaint filed by any member
Whole, ibid.) of the House of Representatives or any
citizen upon resolution of endorsement
Senate is no longer a continuing legislative by any member thereof;
body
NOTE: If the verified complaint is filed by
The present Senate under the 1987 Constitution at least 1/3 of all its members of the
is no longer a continuing legislative body. It has House of Representatives, the same shall
24 members, 12 of whom are elected every 3 constitute the Articles of Impeachment,
years for a term of 6 years each. Thus, the term of and trial by the Senate shall forthwith
12 Senators expires every 3 years, leaving less proceed. [1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3
than a majority of Senators to continue into the (4)]
next Congress since the Rules of Procedure must
be republished by the Senate after every expiry of b. Inclusion in the order of business within
the term of the 12 Senators. (Garcillano v. HoR 10 session days;
Committee on Public Information, G.R. No. 170338, c. Referred to the proper committee within
December 23, 2008) 3 session days from its inclusion;
d. The committee, after hearing, and by
Senate as an INSTITUTION is continuing (2014 majority vote of all its members, shall
Bar) submit its report to the House of
Representatives together with the
There is no debate that the Senate as an corresponding resolution;
institution is "continuing", as it is not dissolved as e. Placing on calendar the Committee
an entity with each national election or change in resolution within 10 days from
the composition of its members. However, in the submission;
conduct of its day-to-day business the Senate of f. Discussion on the floor of the report; and
each Congress acts separately and independently g. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members
of the Senate of the Congress before it. of the House of Representatives shall be
necessary either to affirm a favorable
Undeniably, all pending matters and proceedings, resolution with the Articles of
i.e. unpassed bills and even legislative Impeachment of the committee or
investigations, of the Senate of a particular override its contrary resolution. [(1987
Congress are considered terminated upon the Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3 (2-3)]
expiration of that Congress and it is merely
optional on the Senate of the succeeding Congress 2. Trial and Decision in impeachment proceedings
to take up such unfinished matters, not in the a. The Senators take an oath or affirmation;
same status, but as if presented for the first and
time. The logic and practicality of such a rule is
readily apparent considering that the Senate of NOTE: When the President of the
the succeeding Congress (which will typically Philippines shall be impeached, the Chief
have a different composition as that of the Justice of the Supreme Court shall
previous Congress) should not be bound by the preside, otherwise the Senate President
acts and deliberations of the Senate of which they shall preside in all other cases of
had no part. (Neri v. Senate Committee, GR. No. impeachment. (Senate Resolution No.
180643, September 4, 2008) 890)
b. A decision of conviction must be
concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of
members of Senate. the committee.” (Gutierrez v. House of
Representatives Committee on Justice, ibid.)
NOTE: The power to impeach is essentially a non-
legislative prerogative and can be exercised by Limitations imposed by the Constitution upon
Congress only within the limits of the authority the initiation of impeachment proceedings
conferred upon it by the Constitution. (Gutierrez
v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, 1. The House of Representatives shall have the
G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011) exclusive power to initiate all cases of
impeachment; and
The Senate has the sole power to try and decide 2. Not more than one impeachment proceeding
all cases of impeachment [1987 Constitution, Art. shall be initiated against the same official
XI, Sec. 3(6)]. Hence, judgment in an impeachment within a period of one year (One-year bar
proceeding is normally not subject to judicial rule).
review.
NOTE: An impeachment case is the legal
XPN: Courts may annul the proceedings if there is controversy that must be decided by the
a showing of a grave abuse of discretion or non- Senate while an impeachment proceeding is
compliance with the procedural requirements of one that is initiated in the House of
the Constitution. Representatives. For purposes of applying
the one-year bar rule, the proceeding is
Determination of sufficiency of form and initiated or begins when a verified complaint
substance of an impeachment complaint is filed and referred to the Committee on
Justice for action. (Francisco v. House of
An exponent of the express constitutional grant of Representatives, et. al., G.R. No. 160261,
rulemaking powers of the HoR. November 10, 2003)
In the discharge of that power and in the exercise The power to impeach is essentially a non-
of its discretion, the House has formulated legislative prerogative and can be exercised
determinable standards as to form and substance by Congress only within the limits of the
of an impeachment complaint. Furthermore, the authority conferred upon it by the
impeachment rules are clear in echoing the Constitution (Francisco v. House of
constitutional requirements in providing that Representatives, ibid). It is, by its nature, a sui
there must be a “verified complaint or resolution” generis politico-legal process. (Gonzales III v.
and that the substance requirement is met if Office of the President, G.R.196231, January 28,
there is “a recital of facts constituting the offense 2014)
charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of
the committee.” (Gutierrez v. House of Impeachment is deemed initiated
Representatives Committee on Justice, G.R. No.
193459, February 15, 2011) A verified complaint is filed and referred to the
Committee on Justice for action. This is the
Power of the HoR to determine the sufficiency initiating step which triggers the series of steps
of form and substance of an impeachment that follow. The term “to initiate” refers to the
complaint filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with
Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint.
It is an exponent of the express constitutional (Francisco v. House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, Nov.
grant of rulemaking powers of the HoR. In the 10, 2003)
discharge of that power and in the exercise of its
discretion, the House has formulated One-year bar rule (2014 Bar)
determinable standards as to form and substance
of an impeachment complaint. Furthermore the Initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment rules are clear in echoing the impeachment complaint and referral to the
constitutional requirements in providing that House Committee on Justice. Once an
there must be a “verified complaint or resolution” impeachment complaint has been initiated in the
and that the substance requirement is met if foregoing manner, another may not be filed
there is “a recital of facts constituting the offense against the same official within the one-year
period. (Gutierrez v. HoR Committee on Justice,
ibid.)
NOTE: The limitation refers to the element of shall be its Chairman.

time, and not the number of complaints. The
impeachable officer should defend himself in only
one impeachment proceeding, so that he will not
be precluded from performing his official
functions and duties. Similarly, Congress should
run only one impeachment proceeding so as not
to leave it with little time to attend to its main
work of law-making. (Gutierrez v. The House of
Representatives Committee on Justice, ibid.)
Purpose of the one-year bar rule
1. To prevent undue or too frequent

harassment; and
2. To allow the legislature to do its principal
task of legislation. (Francisco v. House of
Representatives supra.)
The consideration behind the intended limitation

refers to the element of time, and not the number
of complaints. The impeachable officer should
defend himself in only one impeachment
proceeding, so that he will not be precluded from
performing his official functions and duties.
Similarly, Congress should run only one
impeachment proceeding so as not to leave it
with little time to attend to its main work of law-
making. The doctrine laid down in Francisco that
initiation means filing and referral remains
congruent to the rationale of the constitutional
provision. (Gutierrez v. The House of
Representatives Committee on Justice, supra)
NOTE: Congress may look into separate

complaints against an impeachable officer and
consider the inclusion of matters raised therein,
in the adoption of the Articles of Impeachment.
(Francisco v. House of Representatives, et. al.,
supra)
ELECTORAL TRIBUNALS
Composition of the Electoral Tribunal (ET)
1. 3 Supreme Court Justices designated by the

Chief Justice;
2. 6 members of the Senate or the House of
Representatives. as the case may be, chosen
on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and from those
registered under the party-list system
represented therein. (1987 Constitution, Art.
VI, Sec. 17)
NOTE: The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal

Jurisdiction of the ETs When the winning candidate is considered as
member of the Senate or HoR
Each electoral tribunal shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to Once he has: (POA)
the election, returns, and
qualifications of their respective 1. Been Proclaimed
members (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, 2. Taken his Oath; and
Sec. 17). This includes determining
the validity or invalidity of a NOTE: The oath must be made:
proclamation declaring a particular a. Before the Senate President or Speaker
candidate as the winner. Each ET is of the House, as the case may be; and
also vested with rule- making b. In open session. (Reyes v. COMELEC, G.R.
power. (Lazatin v. HRET, G.R. No. L- No. 207264, June 25, 2013)
84297, Dec. 8, 1988)
3. Assumed office
NOTE: It is independent of the
Houses of Congress and its decisions NOTE: Once a winning candidate has been
may be reviewed by the Supreme proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as
Court only upon showing of grave Member of the House of Representatives (or of
abuse of discretion. the Senate), the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the
election contest relating to his election, returns
Electoral contest and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s (or SET’s)
own jurisdiction begins. (Vinzons-Chato v.
Where a defeated candidate COMELEC, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007)
challenges the qualification and
claims for himself the seat of the By analogy with the cases of district
proclaimed winner. In the absence representatives, once the party or organization of
of an election contest, ET is without the party-list nominee becomes a member of the
jurisdiction. HoR, HRET has authority to pass upon election
contests relating to his qualifications. (Abayon v.
HRET, G.R. No. 189466, February 11, 2010)
Q: Liwayway Vinzons-Chato renewed her bid the election, returns and qualifications" of its
in the May 2010 elections as the members. By employing the word "sole", the
representative of the 2nd Legislative District Constitution is emphatic that the jurisdiction
of Camarines Norte but was eventually of the HRET in the adjudication of election
defeated by Elmer Panote. Aggrieved, Chato contests involving its members is intended to
filed an electoral protest before the HRET be its own full, complete and unimpaired.
assailing the results in all the There can be no challenge, therefore, to such
160 clustered precincts in 4 municipalities. exclusive control absent any clear showing, as
Chato designated forty (40) pilot clustered in this case, of arbitrary and improvident use
precincts, in which revision of ballots shall be by the Tribunal of its power that constitutes a
conducted. After the initial revisions of the denial of due process of law, or upon a
designated clustered precints, Chato moved demonstration of a very clear unmitigated
for the revision of ballots in all of the error, manifestly constituting such grave
protested clustered precincts. The motion was abuse of discretion that there has to be a
initially denied, but a resolution was remedy therefor. (Liwayway Vinzons-Chato
eventually issued by the HRET directing the v. HRET, G. R. No. 201350, January 22, 2013,
continuation of the revision of ballots in the PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE)
remaining seventy- five percent (75%)
protested clustered precincts, or a total of 120 Q: Wigberto and Angelina and Alvin were
precincts. Such was opposed by Panote, contenders for the position of Member of
ascribing grave abuse of disctretion on the the House of Representatives for the 4th
part of HRET. Is the opposition of Panote District of Quezon Province on the May 13,
correct? 2013 National Elections. Wigberto filed
before the COMELEC two separate
A: NO. The Constitution mandates that the HRET petitions: to cancel Alvin’s CoC and to
"shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to declare him as a nuisance candidate. The
COMELEC cancelled Alvin’s CoC but did not
declare him to be a nuisance candidate. petition was pending, Wigberto initiated the
Despite the cancellation of Alvin’s CoC due to instant certiorari case against the COMELEC
his material misrepresentations therein, his En Banc Resolution declaring Alvin not a
name was not deleted from the ballot. nuisance candidate. Is the petition tenable?
Subsequently, Angelina was proclaimed as the
winning candidate. It appears that Wigberto A: NO. The petition must fail. Section 17, Article
had filed with the COMELEC a Petition to VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides
Annul the Proclamation of Angelina and while that the HRET is the sole judge of all contests
such relating to the election, returns, and qualifications
of its respective members. Case law states that
the proclamation of a congressional candidate
following the election divests the COMELEC of
jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election,
returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed
representative in favor of the HRET. Considering
that Angelina had already been proclaimed as
Member of the House of Representatives for the
4th District of Quezon Province on May 16, 2013,
as she has in fact taken her oath and assumed
office past noon time of June 30, 2013, the Court
is now without jurisdiction to resolve the case at
bar. As they stand, the issues concerning the
conduct of the canvass and the resulting
proclamation of Angelina as herein discussed are
matters which fall under the scope of the terms
election and return and hence, properly fall under
the HRET’s sole jurisdiction. (Wigberto Tañada,
Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 207199-200, October
22, 2013, PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE)
Q: Gemma ran for Congresswoman of

Muntinlupa in the May 2013 elections.
However, before the elections, the COMELEC
cancelled her CoC after hearing a complaint
filed against her. Later, she was declared
winner as Congresswoman of Muntinlupa. The
decision said she took her oath already and
had not assumed her office as
Congresswoman. Subsequently, COMELEC
issued a certificate of finality on its earlier
resolution cancelling Gemma’s COC. Gemma
comes before the Court arguing that COMELEC
has lost jurisdiction over the case and it is the
HRET that has jurisdiction as she is already
declared a winner. Is Gemma’s contention
tenable?
A: NO. Gemma cannot be considered a Member of

the House of Representatives because, primarily,
she has not yet assumed office. The jurisdiction of
the HRET begins only after the candidate is
considered a Member of the House of
Representatives, as stated in Art. VI, Sec. 17 of the
1987 Constitution. To be considered a Member of
the House of Representatives, there must be a
concurrence of the following requisites: (1) a
valid proclamation, (2) a proper oath, and (3)
assumption of office.
affirmed the validity of Lico’s expulsion from
The term of office of a Member of the House of

Representatives begins only “at noon on the
thirtieth day of June next following their election.”
Thus, until such time, the COMELEC retains
jurisdiction. Consequently, before there is a valid
or official taking of the oath it must be made (1)
before the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and (2) in open session. Here,
although she made the oath before Speaker
Belmonte, there is no indication that it was made
during plenary or in open session and, thus, it
remains unclear whether the required oath of
office was indeed complied with. (Reyes v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013)
Power of each House over its members in the

absence of election contest
The power of each House to expel its members or

even to defer their oath-taking until their
qualifications are determined may be exercised
even without an election contest.
Q: Imelda ran for HoR. A disqualification case

was filed against her on account of her
residence. The case was not resolved before
the election. Imelda won the election.
However, she was not proclaimed. Imelda now
questions the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over the
case. Does the COMELEC have jurisdiction
over the case?
A: YES. The COMELEC retains jurisdiction. Since

Imelda has not yet been proclaimed, she is not yet
a member of the HoR. HRET’s jurisdiction as the
sole judge of all contests relating to elections, etc.
of members of Congress begins only after a
candidate has become a member of the HoR.
(Romualdez-Marcos v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976,
September 18, 1995)
Q: Ating Koop party-list expelled its first

nominee/representative Lico for refusing to
honor the term-sharing agreement. A petition
was filed with the COMELEC which sought his
removal from being Ating Koop’s
representative. COMELEC 2nd Division expelled
Lico. COMELEC En Banc, however, dismissed
the petition on the ground that it had no
jurisdiction to expel Lico from the HoR,
considering that his expulsion from Ating
Koop affected his qualifications as member of
the House, and therefore it was the HRET that
had jurisdiction over the Petition.
Notwithstanding, COMELEC En Banc still
Ating Koop. Is COMELEC En bona fide membership in the party-list group is a
Banc’s decision correct? continuing qualification x xx. Under Section 17,
Article VI of the Constitution, the HRET is the sole
A: NO. While the COMELEC judge of all contests when it comes to
correctly dismissed the Petition to qualifications of the members of the House of
expel petitioner Lico from the Representatives. Consequently, the COMELEC
House of Representatives for being failed to recognize that the issue on the validity of
beyond its jurisdiction, it petitioner Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop is
nevertheless proceeded to rule integral to the issue of his qualifications to sit in
upon the validity of his expulsion Congress.
from Ating Koop
– a matter beyond its purview. Our ruling here must be distinguished from
Without legal basis, however, is the Regina Ongsiako Reyes v. Commission on Elections.
action of the COMELEC in In Reyes, the petitioner was proclaimed winner of
upholding the validity of the the 13 May 2013 Elections, and took her oath of
expulsion of petitioner Lico from office before the Speaker of the House of
Ating Koop, despite its own ruling Representatives. However, the Court ruled on her
that the HRET has jurisdiction over qualifications since she was not yet a member of
the disqualification issue. These the House of Representatives: petitioner Reyes
findings already touch upon the had yet to assume office, the term of which would
qualification requiring a party-list officially start at noon of 30 June 2013, when she
nominee to be a bona fide member filed a Petition for Certiorari dated 7 June 2013
of the party-list group sought to be assailing the Resolutions ordering the
represented. The petition for Lico's cancellation of her Certificate of Candidacy. In the
expulsion from the House of present case, all three requirements of
Representatives is anchored on his proclamation, oath of office, and assumption of
expulsion from Ating Koop, which office were satisfied.
necessarily affects his title as
member of Congress. A party-list Moreover, in Reyes, the COMELEC En Banc
nominee must have been, among Resolution disqualifying petitioner on grounds of
others, a bona fide member of the lack of Filipino citizenship and residency had
party or organization for at least become final and executory when petitioner
ninety (90) days preceding the day elevated it to this Court. Therefore, there was no
of the election. Needless to say, longer any pending case on the qualifications of
petitioner Reyes to speak of. Here, the question of 1. Expiration of Congressional term of office
whether petitioner Lico remains a member of the 2. Death or permanent disability
House of Representatives in view of his expulsion 3. Resignation from the political party he
from Ating Koop is a subsisting issue. Finally, in represents in the tribunal
Reyes, We found the question of jurisdiction of 4. Formal affiliation with another political
the HRET to be a non-issue, since the recourse of party
the petitioner to the Court appeared to be a mere 5. Removal from office for other valid
attempt to prevent the COMELEC from reasons. (Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No.
implementing a final and executory judgment. In 97710, September 26, 1991)
this case, the question on the validity of petitioner
Lico's expulsion from Ating Koop is a genuine NOTE: Unlike the Commission on
issue that falls within the jurisdiction of the Appointments, the ET shall meet in
HRET, as it unmistakably affects his qualifications accordance with their rules, regardless of
as party-list representative. (Lico v. COMELEC, whether Congress is in session or not.
G.R. No. 205505, September 29, 2015)
Q: Can the Senators-members of the Senate
Valid grounds or just causes for termination Electoral Tribunal be disqualified because
of membership to the tribunal an election contest is filed against them?
Members of the Electoral Tribunal enjoy the A: NO. The Supreme Court held that it cannot
security of tenure. However, they may be order the disqualification of the Senators-
terminated for a just cause such as: members of the Electoral Tribunal simply
because they were themselves respondents in
the electoral protest, considering the specific
mandate of the Constitution and inasmuch as all Remedy from an adverse decision of the ET
the elected Senators were actually named as
respondents. (Abbas v. SET, G.R. No. 83767, A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65
October 22, 1988) of the Rules of Court may be filed. This is based
on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
ET decisions are not appealable excess of jurisdiction. This shall be filed before
the Supreme Court.
Art. VI, Sec. 17 provides that the SET/HRET is the
sole judge of all contests. Hence, from its decision, NOTE: Under the doctrine of primary
there is no appeal. Appeal is not a constitutional administrative jurisdiction, prior recourse to the
right but merely a statutory right. House is necessary before the petitioners may
bring the case to the Supreme Court. (Pimentel vs.
House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, G.R.
No. 141489, November 29, 2002)
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
Composition of the Commission on

Appointments (CA)
1. Senate President as ex-officio chairman

2. 12 Senators
3. 12 members of the HoR. (1987 Constitution,
Art. VI, Sec. 18)
NOTE: A political party must have at least two

(2) senators in the Senate to be able to have a
representative in the CA.
Thus, where there are two or more political

parties represented in the Senate, a political
party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate
cannot constitutionally claim a seat in the
Commission on Appointments. It is not
mandatory to elect 12 senators to the
Commission; what the Constitution requires is
that there must be at least a majority of the entire
membership. (Guingona, Jr.
v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 106971, October 20, 1992)
Membership in the CA
The members of the Commission shall be elected

by each House based on proportional
representation from the political party and party
list. Accordingly, the sense of the Constitution is
that the membership in the CA must always
reflect political alignments in Congress and must
therefore adjust to changes. It is understood that
such changes in party affiliation must be
permanent and not merely temporary alliances.
Endorsement is not sufficient to get a seat in CA.
(Daza v. Singson, G.R. No. 86344, Dec. 21, 1989)
NOTE: The provision of Sec. 18, Art. VI of the

Constitution, on proportional representation is
mandatory in character and does not leave any
discretion to the majority party in the Senate to
disobey or disregard the rule on proportional Chairman or a majority of all its members.
representation; otherwise, the party with a
majority representation in the Senate or the HoR
can by sheer force of numbers impose its will on
the hapless minority. By requiring a proportional
representation in the CA, Sec. 18 in effect works
as a check on the majority party in the Senate and
helps maintain the balance of power. No party can
claim more than what it is entitled to under such
rule. (Guingona, Jr., et al., v. Gonzales, et al., G.R.
No. 106971, March 1, 1993)
Presidential appointments subject to

confirmation by the Commission
1. Heads of the Executive departments

XPN: Vice-President who is appointed to the
post
2. Ambassadors, other public ministers, or
consuls
3. Officers of the AFP from the rank of colonel
or naval captain
4. Other officers whose appointments are
vested in him by the Constitution (i.e.
COMELEC members, etc.)
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.
Rules on voting
1. The CA shall rule by a majority vote of all

the members.
2. The chairman shall only vote in case of tie.
3. The CA shall act on all appointments within
30 session days from their submission to
Congress. (1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 18)
Limitations in the confirmation of

appointment
1. Congress cannot by law prescribe that the

appointment of a person to an office created
by such law be subject to confirmation by
the Commission.
2. Appointments extended by the President to
the above-mentioned positions while
Congress is not in session shall only be
effective until disapproval by the
Commission or until the next adjournment
of Congress. (Sarmiento III, v. Mison, G.R. No.
L- 79974, Dec. 17, 1987)
Guidelines in the meetings of the CA
1. The Commission shall meet only while

Congress is in session, at the call of its
2. Since the Commission is also propose amendments to the Constitution or to
an independent constitutional propose and enact legislation.
body, its rules of procedure
are also outside the scope of Kinds of Initiative under the Initiative and
congressional powers as well Referendum Act (RA 6735)
as that of the judiciary
(Bondoc v. Pineda, G.R. No. 1. Initiative on the Constitution – Refers to a
97710, September 26, 1991). petition proposing amendments to the
Constitution.
NOTE: The ET and the CA shall be 2. Initiative on statutes – Refers to a petition to
constituted within 30 days after enact a national legislation.
the Senate and the HoR shall have 3. Initiative on local legislation – Refers to a
been organized with the election of petition proposing to enact a regional,
the Senate President and the provincial, municipal, city, or barangay law,
Speaker of the House. resolution or ordinance[RA 6735, Sec. 3 (a)].
Remedy from an adverse decision of the CA NOTE: Sec. 3 (b) of RA 6735 provides for:
A special civil action for certiorari a. Indirect Initiative – Exercise of initiative

under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court by the people through a proposition sent
may be filed. This is based on grave to Congress or the local legislative body
abuse of discretion amounting to for action.
lack or excess of jurisdiction. This b. Direct Initiative – The people themselves
shall be filed before the Supreme filed the petition with the COMELEC and
Court. not with Congress.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM RA 6735 is INADEQUATE in covering the

system of initiative on amendments to the
Initiative Constitution (2014 Bar)
It is the power of the people to Under the said law, initiative on the Constitution is
confined only to proposals to amend. The people
are not accorded the power to "directly propose,

enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the 2. Propose and
Constitution" through the system of initiative. enact legislation.
They can only do so with respect to "laws,
ordinances, or resolutions." Secondly, the Act NOTE: The following are the initiative or limitations on
does not provide for the contents of a petition for referendum:
initiative on the Constitution. The use of the important than the initiative on national and
clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, local laws.
approved or rejected, amended or repealed"
denotes that RA 6735 excludes initiative on the While RA 6735 specially detailed the process
amendments of the Constitution. in implementing initiative and referendum on
national and local laws, it intentionally did not
Also, while the law provides subtitles for National do so on the system of initiative on
Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative amendments to the Constitution (Defensor-
and Referendum, no subtitle is provided for Santiago v. COMELEC G.R. No. 127325, March
initiative on the Constitution. This means that the 19, 1997).
main thrust of the law is initiative and
referendum on national and local laws. If RA 6735 Referendum
were intended to fully provide for the
implementation of the initiative on amendments It is the power of the electorate to approve or
to the Constitution, it could have provided for a reject legislation through an election called for
subtitle, considering that in the order of things, that purpose.
the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the
right of the people to directly propose Kinds of Referendum
amendments to the Constitution is far more
1. Referendum on Statutes - Refers to a petition a. No petition embracing more than one (1)
to approve or reject a law, or part thereof, subject shall be submitted to the electorate.
passed by Congress. b. Statutes involving emergency measures,
2. Referendum on Local Law – Refers to a the enactment of which are specifically
petition to approve or reject a law, vested in Congress by the Constitution,
resolution or ordinance enacted by regional cannot be subject to referendum until 90
assemblies and local legislative bodies. days after their effectivity. (RA 6735, Sec.
10).
Initiative vs. Referendum (2000 Bar)
Non-Legislative Powers
BASIS INITIATIVE REFERENDUM
1. Propose Approve or Informing function of Congress
Extent amendments to reject
the Constitution; legislation The informing function of the legislature includes
its function to conduct legislative inquiries and
investigation and its oversight power.
The power of Congress does not end with the

finished task of legislation. Associated with its
principal power to legislate is the auxiliary power
to ensure that the laws it enacts are faithfully
executed.
The power of oversight has been held to be

intrinsic in the grant of legislative power itself
and integral to the checks and balances inherent
in a democratic system of government. Woodrow
Wilson emphasized that “Even more important
than legislation is the instruction and guidance in
political affairs which the people might receive
from a body which kept all national concerns
suffused in a broad daylight of discussion.”
(Opinion of J. Puno, Macalintal v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 157013, July 10, 2003)
Other non-legislative powers
1. Power to declare the existence of state of war

(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 23, Par. 1)
NOTE: Under Art. VI, Sec. 23(2), Congress may

grant the President emergency powers
subject to the following conditions:
(WaLiReN)
a. There is a War or other national

emergency;
b. The grant of emergency powers must
be for a Limited period;
c. The grant of emergency powers is
subject to such Restrictions as
Congress may prescribe; and
d. The emergency powers must be
exercised to carry out a National
policy declared by Congress.
2. Power to act as Board of Canvassers in

election of President (1987 Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec. 10)
3. Power to call a special election for President
and Vice-President (1987 Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec. 10)
4. Power to judge President’s physical fitness
to discharge the functions of the Presidency
5. Power to revoke or extend suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
declaration of martial law (1987
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 18)
6. Power to concur in Presidential amnesties.
Concurrence of majority of all the members
of Congress (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec.
19)
7. Power to concur in treaties or international
agreements; concurrence of at least 2/3 of
all the members of the Senate (1987
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 21)
8. Power to confirm certain appointments/
nominations made by the President (1987
Constitution, Art. VII, Secs. 9 and 16)
9. Power relative to natural resources
(1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 2)
10. Power of internal organization (1987
Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 16)
a. Election of officers
b. Promulgate internal
rules Disciplinary powers
POLITICAL LAW
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT his tenure. 2. If appointed to a
(1987 Cabinet post, no
Head of the Executive Department Constitution, Art. need for
VII, Sec. 6) Commission on
The President is both the head of State and head 3. Immunity from Appointments’
of government; hence, executive power is suit for official confirmation. (1987
exclusively vested on him. acts. Constitution, Art.
VII, Sec. 3)
QUALIFICATIONS, ELECTION, AND TERM OF
THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT Presidential or executive immunity
Qualifications of the President The President is immune from suit during his
incumbency.
1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;
2. A registered voter; Rules on executive immunity
3. Able to read and write;
4. At least forty years of age on the day of A. Rules on immunity DURING tenure (not term):
the election; and
5. A resident of the Philippines for at least 1. The President is immune from suit during
ten years immediately preceding such his tenure. (In re: Bermudez, G.R. No. 76180,
election. (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 2) October 24, 1986)
2. An impeachment complaint may be filed
Term of office of the President against him during his tenure. (1987
Constitution, Art. XI)
1. The President shall be elected by direct vote 3. The President may not be prevented from
of the people for a term of 6 years which instituting suit. (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No.
shall begin at noon on the 30th day of June 82585, November 14, 1988)
next following the day of the election and 4. There is nothing in our laws that would
shall end at noon of the same date, 6 years prevent the President from waiving the
thereafter. privilege. He may shed the protection
2. The President shall not be eligible for any afforded by the privilege. (Soliven v.
re- election. Makasiar, ibid.)
NOTE: The Vice-President cannot serve for 5. Heads of departments cannot invoke the
more than 2 successive terms. President’s immunity. (Gloria v. CA, G.R. No.
3. No person who has succeeded as President 119903, August 15, 2000)
and has served as such for more than four
years shall be qualified for election to the B. Rule on immunity AFTER tenure:
same office at any time. (1987 Constitution,
Art. VII, Sec. 4) Once out of office, even before the end of the
6-year term, immunity for non-official acts
NOTE: Vice-President shall have the same is lost. Immunity cannot be claimed to shield
qualifications and term of office and be elected a non-sitting President from prosecution for
with, and in the same manner, as the President. alleged criminal acts done while sitting in
He may be removed from office in the same office. (Estrada v. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-
manner as the President. (1987 Constitution, Art. 15, March 2, 2001)
VII, Sec. 3.
PRIVILEGES, INHIBITIONS AND When a non-sitting President is not immune
DISQUALIFICATIONS from suit for acts committed during his tenure
Privileges of the President and Vice-President A non-sitting President does not enjoy immunity
from suit, even though the acts were done during
her tenure. The intent of the framers of the
Constitution is clear that the immunity of the
president from suit is concurrent only with his
tenure and not his term. Former President Arroyo
cannot use the presidential immunity from suit to
shield herself from judicial scrutiny that would
PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT
ExecUTIVe DePARTMent
1. Official residence; 1. Salary shall
2. Salary is not be
determined by law decreased
and not to be during his
decreased during tenure;
assess whether, within the context subordinates for failing to prevent or punish the perpetrators
of amparo proceedings, she was responsible or (as opposed to crimes he ordered). (Rubrico v. GMA, G.R. No.
accountable for the abduction of Rodriguez. 183871, February 18, 2010)
(Rodriguez v. GMA, G.R. Nos. 191805 & 193160,
November 15, 2011)
When a former President cannot be impleaded
Impleading the former President as an unwilling

co-petitioner, for an act she made in the
performance of the functions of her office, is
contrary to the public policy against embroiling
the President in suits, “to assure the exercise of
Presidential duties and functions free from any
hindrance or distraction, considering that being
the Chief Executive of the Government is a job
that, aside from requiring all of the office holder’s
time, also demands undivided attention.
Therefore, former President GMA cannot be
impleaded as one of the petitioners in this suit.
Thus, her name is stricken off the title of this case.
(Resident Marine Mammals v. Reyes, G.R. No.
180771, April 21, 2015)
Purpose of presidential immunity
1. Separation of powers – viewed as demanding

the executive’s independence from the
judiciary, so that the President should not be
subject to the judiciary’s whim. (Almonte, v.
Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, May 23, 1995)
2. Public convenience – The grant is to assure
the exercise of presidential duties and
functions free from any hindrance or
distraction, considering that the presidency
is a job that, aside from requiring all of the
office-holders’ time, demands undivided
attention. (Soliven v. Makasiar, G.R. No.
82585, Nov. 14, 1988)
NOTE: The immunity of the President from suit is

personal to the President. It may be invoked only
by the President and not by any other person.
Such privilege pertains to the President by the
virtue of the office and may be invoked only by
the holder of that office; and not by any other
person in his behalf. (Soliven v. Makasiar, ibid.)
Principle of command responsibility
It is “an omission mode of individual criminal

liability,” whereby the superior is made
responsible for crimes committed by his
53
POLITICAL LAW
Elements of command responsibility circumstantial evidence. In the Philippines, a
more liberal view is adopted and superiors may
1. The existence of a superior- be charged with constructive knowledge.
subordinate relationship
between the accused as Knowledge of the commission of irregularities,
superior and the perpetrator crimes or offenses is presumed when:
of the crime as his
subordinate; 1. The acts are widespread within the
2. The superior knew or had government official’s area of jurisdiction;
reason to know that the crime 2. The acts have been repeatedly or regularly
was about to be or had been committed within his area of responsibility;
committed; or
3. The superior failed to take the 3. Members of his immediate staff or office
necessary and reasonable personnel are involved.
measures to prevent the
criminal acts or punish the
perpetrators thereof.
(Rodriguez v. GMA, G.R. Nos.
191805 & 193160, November
15, 2011)
Application of the doctrine of

command responsibility in
amparo proceedings
It should, at most, be only to

determine the author who, at the
first instance, is accountable for,
and has the duty to address, the
disappearance and harassments
complained of, so as to enable the
Court to devise remedial measures
that may be appropriate under the
premises to protect rights covered
by the writ of amparo. (Rubrico v.
GMA,
G.R. No. 183871, February 18, 2010)
President may be held liable for

extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances as
Commander-in-Chief
The President may be held

accountable under the principle of
command responsibility. Being the
commander-in-chief of all armed
forces, he necessarily possesses
control over the military that
qualifies him as a superior within
the purview of the command
responsibility doctrine.
On the issue of knowledge, it must

be pointed out that although
international tribunals apply a
strict standard of knowledge, i.e.
actual knowledge, the same may
nonetheless be established through
As to the issue of failure to prevent or punish, it is 2. Executive Secretary, upon proper
important to note that as the commander-in-chief authorization from the President
of the armed forces, the President has the power NOTE: Executive Secretary must state that
to effectively command, control and discipline the the authority is “By order of the President,”
military. (Rodriguez v. GMA, G.R. Nos. 191805 & which means he personally consulted with
193160, Nov. 15, 2011) the President.
Presidential or Executive Privilege (2009, Requirement if an official is summoned by

2010, 2015 Bar) Congress on a matter which in his own
judgment might be covered by executive
It is the power of the President and high-level privilege
executive branch officers to withhold certain
types of information from Congress, the courts, He must be afforded reasonable time to inform
and ultimately the public. the President or the Executive Secretary of the
possible need for invoking the privilege, in order
Invocation of the privilege to provide the same with fair opportunity to
consider whether the matter indeed calls for a
It must be invoked in relation to specific claim of executive privilege. If, after the lapse of
categories of information and not to categories of that reasonable time, neither the President nor
persons. the Executive Secretary invokes the privilege,
Congress is no longer bound to respect the failure
NOTE: A claim of the executive privilege may be of the official to appear before Congress and may
valid or not depending on the ground invoked to then opt to avail of the necessary legal means to
justify it and the context in which it is made. compel his appearance (Senate v. Ermita, ibid.).
Noticeably absent is any recognition that
executive officials are exempt from the duty to Requirements in invoking the privilege
disclose information by the mere fact of being
executive officials. (Senate v. Ermita, G.R. No. 1. There must be a formal claim of the
169777, April 20, 2006) privilege; and
2. The claim has specific designation and
Consequently, in case where the privilege is description of the documents within its
invoked through executive orders (EOs) scope and with the precise and certain
prohibiting executive officials from participating reasons for preserving their confidentiality.
in legislative inquiries, the Court held that “to the
extent that investigations in aid of legislation are Reason: Without this specificity, it is impossible
generally conducted in public, any executive for a court to analyze the claim short of disclosure
issuance tending to unduly limit disclosures of of the very thing sought to be protected.
information in such investigations necessarily
deprives the people of information which, being NOTE: Congress, however, must not require the
presumed to be in aid of legislation, is presumed Executive to state the reasons for the claim with
to be a matter of public concern. The citizens are such particularity as to compel disclosure of the
thereby denied access to information which they information, which the privilege is meant to
can use in formulating their own opinions on the protect (Senate v. Ermita, ibid.).
matter before Congress— opinions which they
can then communicate to their representatives Limitation of executive privilege
and other government officials through the
various legal means allowed by their freedom of Claim of executive privilege is subject to
expression.” (Senate v. Ermita, ibid.) balancing against other interest. Simply put,
confidentiality in executive privilege is not
Persons who can invoke executive privilege absolutely protected by the Constitution. Neither
the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need
1. President for confidentiality of high-level communications
NOTE: Being an extraordinary power, the can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential
privilege must be wielded only by the privilege of immunity from judicial process under
highest official in the executive department. all circumstances (Neri v. Senate, G.R. No. 180643,
Thus, the President may not authorize her March 25, 2008).
subordinates to exercise such power.
55
EO 464 requiring all Rooted in
Executive Kinds of executive privilege BASIS PRESIDENTIA the
department heads to L constituti
secure the consent 1. State secret privilege– COMMUNICA onal
of the President Invoked by Presidents TIONS principle
before appearing in on the ground that the PRIVILEGE of Root
Pertains Foun
Question Hour is information is of such separatio comm
to dati
valid nature that its n of law
communi on
disclosure would powers privi
The requirement to subvert crucial military cations, and the
secure presidential or diplomatic objectives. documen President
consent, limited as it 2. Informer’s privilege– ts or ’s unique
is only to appearances Privilege of the other constituti
in the question hour, government not to materials onal role
is valid on its face. For disclose the identity of that
unlike inquiries in aid persons who furnish reflect Presidential
of legislation under information in president
Scope of
Sec. 21, Art. VI of the violations of law to ial Communicati
the
Constitution where officers charged with decision-
privileg
such appearance is the enforcement of the making ons Privilege
e
mandatory, under Sec. law. and
22, the appearance of 3. Generic privilege for deliberati Elements:
department heads in internal deliberation– ons that
the question hour is Said to attach to intra- the 1. The
discretionary on governmental President protected
their part. documents reflecting believes communi
advisory opinions, should cation
Dictated by the basic recommendations and remain must
rule of construction deliberations confident relate to
that issuances must be comprising part of a ial a
interpreted, as much process by which Applies “quintess
as possible, in a way governmental decisions To to ential and
that will render it and policies are whom decision- non-
constitutional, the formulated. applic making delegable
said provision must be 4. Presidential able of the president
construed as communications President ial
applicable only to privilege; power.”
appearances in 5. Deliberative process
2. The President.
question hour under privilege (In Re: Sealed
communicat 3. The
Sec. 22, not in Case No. 96-3124, June
ion must be presidenti
inquiries in aid of 17, 1997).
authored or al
legislation under Sec.
“solicited communic
21. Congress is not Test to determine the
and ations
bound in the latter validity of a claim of
received” by privilege
instance to respect the privilege: Whether the
a close remains a
refusal of the requested information falls
advisor of qualified
department head to within one of the traditional
the privilege
appear in such privileges and whether that
President or that may
inquiry, unless a valid privilege should be honored
the be
claim of privilege is in a given procedural setting.
President overcome
subsequently made,
himself. The by a
either by the Presidential
judicial test showing of
President herself or communications privilege
is that an adequate
by the Executive vs.
advisor need, such
Secretary (Senate v. Deliberative process
must be in that the
Ermita, G.R. No. privilege
“operational informatio
169777, April 20,
proximity” n sought
2006) .
with the “likely

contains of the information
important government “in sought even after the
evidence” and a manner that pertains to JPEPA is
by the preserves the diplomatic published.
unavailability essential negotiations Disclosing these
of the functions of then in offers could
information each Branch.” progress. On impair the ability
elsewhere by the other hand, of the Philippines
an Q: The HoRs’ Akbayan for to deal not only
appropriate House their part with Japan but
investigating Committee invoked their also with other
authority. conducted an right to foreign
inquiry on the information on governments in
Presumed Japan- matters of future
privilege status Philippines public concern. negotiations.
of presidential Economic Are matters Thus, the DTI
communications Partnership involving USec. correctly
Agreement diplomatic invoked executive
The presumption (JPEPA), then negotiations privilege based
is based on the being covered by claiming the
President’s negotiated by executive information
generalized the Philippine privilege? sought pertains to
interest in Government. diplomatic
confidentiality. The House A: YES. The negotiations then
The privilege is Committee Court held that in progress
necessary to requested DTI while the final (AKBAYAN v.
guarantee the USec. Aquino to text of the Aquino, G.R No.
candor of furnish it with JPEPA may not 170516, July 16,
presidential a copy of the be kept 2008).
advisors and to latest draft of perpetually
provide the the JPEPA. Jay confidential, the NOTE: Such privilege
President and replied that he offers is only presumptive.
those who assist shall provide a exchanged by
him with freedom copy thereof the parties Matters involving
to explore once the during the diplomatic
alternatives in the negotiations negotiations negotiations are
process of are completed. continue to be covered by
shaping policies privileged executive
and making A petition was privilege.
decisions and to filed with the However, such
do so in a way SC which seeks privilege is only
many could be to obtain a presumptive.
unwilling to copy of the Recognizing a
express except Philippine and type of
privately. The Japanese offers information as
presumption can submitted privileged does
be overcome only during the not mean that it
by mere showing negotiation will be considered
of public need by process and all privileged in all
the branch pertinent instances. Only
seeking access to attachments after a
conversations. and annexes consideration of
The courts are thereto. Jay the context in
enjoined to invoked which the claim is
resolve the executive made may it be
competing privilege based determined if
interests of the on the ground there is a public
political branches that the interest that calls
57
for the disclosure of positions Government, appointed to the judiciary
the desired are ex- including GOCCs and as ambassadors and
information, strong officio and 6. Shall avoid consuls.
enough to overcome they do not conflict of
its traditionally receive any interest in Q: Joey, the Chief
privileged status salary or conduct of office Presidential Legal
(AKBAYAN v. Aquino, other 7. Shall avoid Counsel (CPLC), was also
ibid.). emolument nepotism(1987 appointed as Chairman of
s therefore Constitution, Art. the PCGG. May the two
Prohibitions (e.g. Sec. of VII, Sec. 13). offices be held by the
attached to the Finance as same person?
President, Vice- head of the NOTE: The spouse
President, Cabinet Monetary and relatives by A: NO. When the Chief
Members, and their Board) consanguinity or Presidential Legal Counsel
deputies or affinity within the 4th was also appointed as
assistants, unless NOTE: This civil degree of the Chairman of the PGCC, the
otherwise provided prohibition President shall not, Court held that the two
in the Constitution must not, during his tenure, be offices are incompatible.
(1996, 1998, however, be appointed as: Without question, the PCGG
2002, 2004 Bar) construed as is an agency under the
applying to a. Members of Executive Department.
1. Shall not receive posts occupied the Thus, the actions of the
any other by the PCGG Chairman are subject
emolument from Executive Constituti to the review of the
the government officials onal CPLC(Public Interest Group
or any other without Commissi v. Elma, G.R. No. 138965,
source (1987 additional ons; June 30, 2006).
Constitution, Art. compensation b. Office of the
VII, Sec. 6). in an ex-officio Ombudsman Q: The President
2. Shall not hold capacity, as ; appointed Kimberly as
any other office provided by c. Secretaries; the Acting Secretary of
or employment law and as d. Undersecret Justice. After a couple of
during their required by the aries; days, the President
tenure unless: primary e. Chairmen designated her as the
a. Otherwise functions of the or heads Acting Solicitor General in
provided in said official’s of a concurrent capacity.
the office (National bureaus Julie contested the
Constitution Amnesty or offices, appointment of Kimberly
(e.g. VP can Commission v. including on the ground that the
be appointed COA, G.R. No. GOCCs appointment violated Sec.
as a Cabinet 156982, and their 13, Art. VII of the
Member September 2, subsidiar Constitution which
without the 2004). ies. expressly prohibits the
need of President, Vice-
confirmation 3. Shall not If the spouse, etc., President, the Members
by practice, was already in any of of the Cabinet, and their
Commission directly or the above offices at deputies or assistants
on indirectly, any the time before from holding any other
Appointmen other his/her spouse office or employment
ts; Sec. of profession became President, during their
Justice sits in during their he/she may continue
the Judicial tenure in office. What is
and Bar 4. Shall not prohibited is
Council) participate in any appointment and
b. The business reappointment, not
continuation in
5. Shall not be contract with, or in any office.
financially franchise, or special
interested in any privilege granted by the Spouses, etc., can be
tenure designation of itself. the language
unless Kimberly as In of Sec. 13,
otherwi the Acting other Art. VII is
se Secretary of words, prohibitory
provide Justice, Sec. 7, so that it
d in the concurrently Art. IX- must be
Constit with his B is understood
ution. position as meant as intended
On the Acting to lay to be a
other Solicitor down positive and
hand, General, the unequivocal
Kimber violate the genera negation of
ly constitutional l rule the privilege
claims prohibition applica of holding
that against dual ble to multiple
accordi or multiple all government
ng to offices for the electiv offices or
Sec. 7, Members of e and employment.
par. (2), the Cabinet appoin
Art. IX- and their tive The phrase
B of the deputies and public "unless
Constit assistants? official otherwise
ution, s and provided in
her A: YES. There is emplo this
appoint violation of the yees, Constitution"
ment to Constitution in while must be given
such case an Acting Sec. a literal
positio Secretary of 13, interpretatio
ns is Justice is Art. VII n to refer
outside designated as is only to those
the Acting Solicitor meant instances
coverag General to be cited in the
e of the because while the Constitution
prohibi all other excepti itself, to wit:
tion appointive on
under officials in the applica a. The Vice-
Sec. 13 civil service are ble President
of Art. allowed to hold only to being
VII as it other office or the appointe
falls employment in Presid d as a
into the ent, member
one of government the of the
the during their Vice- Cabinet
excepti tenure when Presid under
ons as such is allowed ent, Sec. 3,
being by law or by and par. (2),
allowed the primary Memb Art. VII;
by law functions of ers of or acting
or by their positions, the as
the members of Cabine President
primar the Cabinet, t, their in those
y their deputies deputi instances
functio and assistants es and provided
ns of may do so only assista under
her when expressly nts. Sec. 7,
positio authorized by pars. (2)
n. Does the On its and (3),
the Constitution face, Art. VII;
59
and Council by Scope of power
b. The virtue of executive (1987
Secr Sect. 8 (1), power Constitut
etar Art. VIII ion, Art.
y (Funa v. 1. Executive VII, Sec.
of Agra, G.R. power is 16)
Justi No. vested in 2. Power of
ce 191644, the control
bein February President over all
g 19, 2013). of the executive
ex- Philippines departm
offic Sec. 13, Art. VII . (1987 ents,
io undoubtedly Constitutio bureaus
me covers the n, Art. VII, and
mbe Acting Sec. 1). offices
r of Secretary of 2. It is not (1987
the Justice as being limited to Constitut
Judi concurrently those set ion, Art.
cial designated as forth in the VII, Sec.
and Acting Solicitor Constitutio 17)
Bar General; n 3. Comman
therefore, (Residual der-in-
powers) Chief
he could not VII, Sec. 17). (Marcos v. powers
validly hold any Manglapus (calling-
other office or Faithful , G.R. No. out
employment Execution 88211, power,
during his tenure Clause October 27, power to
as the Acting 1989). place the
Solicitor General, The power to 3. Privilege of Philippin
because the take care that immunity es under
Constitution has the laws be from suit is martial
not otherwise so faithfully personal to law, and
provided. executed makes the power to
the President a President suspend
dominant figure and may the
in the be invoked privilege
POWERS OF THE administration by him of the
PRESIDENT of the alone. It writ of
government. may also habeas
EXECUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS be waived corpus)
IN GENERAL by the (1987
The law he is President, Constitut
Executive Power supposed to as when he ion, Art.
enforce himself VII, Sec.
Power vested in includes the files suit 18)
the President of Constitution, (Soliven v. 4. Pardonin
the Philippines. statutes, judicial Makasiar, g power
The President decisions, G.R. No. (1987
shall have control administrative 82585, Constitut
of all executive rules and November ion, Art.
departments, regulations and 14, 1988). VII, Sec.
bureaus and municipal 19)
offices. He shall ordinances, as Specific powers
ensure that laws well as treaties of the
are faithfully entered into by President
executed (1987 the government.
Constitution, Art. 1. Appointing

5. Borrowing A: NO. The continuing
power (1987 Power of President has authority. The law
Constitution, administrative Continuing grants the
Art. VII, Sec. 20) reorganization Authority to President this
6. Diplomatic/Trea Reorganize the power in
ty-making The President has Executive recognition of the
power the continuing Department under recurring need of
(1987 authority to E.O. every President to
Constitution, Art. reorganize the 292. In Domingo v. reorganize his
VII, Sec. 21) national Zamora, the Court office "to achieve
7. Budgetary government, which gave the rationale simplicity,
power (1987 includes the power behind the economy and
Constitution, to group, President's efficiency." The
Art. VII, Sec. 22) consolidate bureaus President
8. Informing and agencies, to
power (1987 abolish offices, to merely organized his
Constitution, transfer functions, office. (Prospero Note: Although
Art. VII, Sec. 23) to create and Pichay v. Executive intrinsically executive and
9. Veto power classify functions, Secretary, G. R. No. therefore pertaining
(1987 services and 196425, July 24, mainly to the President, the
Constitution, activities and to 2012, PER J. appointing power may be
Art. VI, Sec. 27) standardize salaries PERLAS-BERNABE) exercised by the legislature
10. Power of and materials; it is and by the judiciary, as
general effected in good POWER well as the Constitutional
supervision over faith if it is for the OF APPOINTMENT Commissions, over their
local purpose of respective personnel.
governments economy or to Appointment
(1987 make bureaucracy Kinds of Presidential
Constitution, Art. more The selection of an appointments
X, Sec. 4) efficient(MEWAP v. individual who is to
11. Power to call Exec. Sec., G.R. No. exercise the 1. Appointments made by
special session 160093, July 31, functions of a given an Acting President;
(1987 2007). office. It may be 2. Midnight
Constitution, Art. made verbally but it Appointment; (1987
VI, Sec. 15) Q: President is usually done in Constitution, Art. VII,
Benigno Simeon writing through Sec. 15)
Administrative power Aquino III issued what is called the 3. Regular Presidential
Executive Order commission. Appointments, with or
Power concerned No. 13 (E.O. 13), without the
with the work of abolishing the NOTE: The confirmation by the
applying policies and PAGC and appointing power of CA; or
enforcing orders as transferring its the President is 4. Ad-interim
determined by proper functions to the executive in nature. Appointments.
governmental organs. Office of the While Congress and
It enables the Deputy Executive the Constitution in Elements in making a
President to fix a Secretary for certain cases may valid, complete, and
uniform standard of Legal Affairs prescribe the effective Presidential
administrative (ODESLA), more qualifications for appointment: (ATVA)
efficiency and check particularly to its particular offices,
the official conduct of newly-established the determination of 1. Authority to appoint
his agents. To this who among those and evidence of the
end, he can issue and Adjudicatory who are qualified exercise of the
administrative Division (IAD). will be appointed is authority;
orders, rules and Does the EO usurp the President’s 2. Transmittal of the
regulations (Ople v. the legislative prerogative appointment paper
Torres, G.R. No. power to create (Pimentel v. Ermita, signed by the
127685, July 23, office? G.R. No. 164978, President and
1998). October 13, 2005). evidence of the
61
transmittal; or ss of the
NOTE: igi office.
NOTE: It is not The na Howe
enough that the incumben l ver, in
President signs the t must ap case of
appointment paper. first be p loss of
There should be legally oi the
evidence that the removed, nt original
President intended or his m appoint
the appointment appointm en ment
paper to be issued. ent validly t paper,
Release of the terminate pa the
appointment paper d, before pe appoint
through the one could r, ment
Malacañ ang Records be validly w must be
Office (MRO) is an installed hi evidence
unequivocal act that to succeed ch d by a
signifies the him. co certified
President’s intent of ul true
its issuance. 4. Receipt of d copy
the be issued
3. A Vacant position appointm br by the
at the time of ent paper o proper
appointment; and ug office, in
Acceptanc ht this case
e of the ab the
appointm o Malacañ
ent by the ut ang
appointee by Records
who ne Office.
possesses gli
all the ge NOTE:
qualificati nc Accepta
ons and e, nce is
none of ac indispen
the ci sable to
disqualific de complet
ations nt e an
, appoint
NOTE: fr ment.
The au Assumin
possessio d, g office
n of the fir and
original e taking
appointm or the oath
ent paper th amount
is not ef to
indispens t, acceptan
able to co ce of the
authorize rr appoint
an es ment. An
appointee p oath of
to assume o office is
office. If it n a
were ds qualifyin
indispens to g
able, then a require
a loss of lo ment for
the
a as a single (1987 whose
pub process. There Constitution, Art.
lic is no valid VII, Sec. 14). appointm
offi appointment if ents
ce, the process Designation are
a lacks even one not
pre step. And there The imposition otherwis
req is no need to of additional e
uisi further duties on a provided
te distinguish person already by law;
to between an in the public 3. Those
the effective and an service. It is whom he
full ineffective considered only may be
inv appointment as an acting or authorize
esti when an temporary d by law
tur appointment is appointment, to
e of valid (Velicaria- which does not appoint;
the Garafil v. Office confer security and
offi of the President, of tenure on the 4. Those
ce. G.R. No. person named other
203372, June (Binamira v. officers
Concurr 16, 2015). Garrucho, G.R. lower in
ence of No. 92008, July rank
all these Non-justiciability of 30, 1990). whose
element appointments appointm
s should NOTE: The ent is
always Appointment is President has vested by
apply, a political the power to law in the
regardle question. So temporarily President
ss of long as the designate an alone
when appointee officer already (1987
the satisfies the in the Constituti
appoint minimum government on, Art.
ment is requirements service or any VII, Sec.
made, prescribed by other competent 16).
whether law for the person to
outside, position, the perform the Presidential
just appointment functions of an appointments
before, may not be office in the that need
or subject to executive prior
during judicial review. branch. recommendat
the Temporary ion or
appoint Rule on the designation nomination
ment effectivity of cannot exceed by the
ban. appointments one year. Judicial and
These made by an Bar Council
steps in Acting Appointments
the President made solely by 1. Mem
appoint the President bers
ment Shall remain of the
process effective unless 1. Those Supre
should revoked by the vested by me
always elected the Court
concur President Constitutio and
and within 90 days n on the all
operate from his President lower
alone; court
assumption/reassumption 2. Those s
63
(1987 tion, appointments
Constitut Art. VIII, the Congress
ion, Art. 2. Ambassadors, Sec. may by law
VIII, Sec. other public 8(2)] vest in the
9). ministers and President
2. Ombudsman consuls– NOTE: The alone (Manalo
and his 5 Those enumeration is v. Sistoza, 312
deputies connected exclusive. SCRA 239,
with the August 11,
CONFIRMATION AND diplomatic
BY-PASSED Appointing 1999, En
and consular
APPOINTMENTS procedure for Banc).
services of the those that need
Appointments country. Commission’s Procedure for those
where 3. Officers of confirmation that do not need the
confirmation of AFP from the Commission’s
the Commission rank of 1. Nomination by confirmation
on colonel or the President 1. Appointment
Appointments is naval captain 2. Confirmation by 2. Acceptance
required (HA2O) NOTE: PNP of the CA
equivalent 3. Issuance of AD
1. Heads of ranks and the commission INTERIM
executive Philippine 4. Acceptance by APPOINTMENTS
departments Coast Guard is the appointee
not included. Ad interim
GR: 4. Other officers NOTE: At any time, Appointment
Appointm of the before all four steps
ent of government have been complied
cabinet whose with, the President
secretarie appointments can withdraw the
s requires are vested in nomination and
confirmat the President appointment
ion. in the (Lacson v.
Constitution Romero,.R. No. L-
XPN: (1987 3081, October 14,
Vice- Constitution, 1949).
president Art. VII, Sec.
may be 16), such as: Appointments
appointe where
d as a a. Chairme confirmation of
member n and the Commission
of the member on Appointments
Cabinet s of the is NOT required:
andsuch CSC,
appointm COMEL 1. All other officers
ent EC and of the
requires COA Government
no [1987 whose
confirmat Constitu appointments
ion [1987 tion, are not
Constituti Art. IX- otherwise
on, Art. B, C, D, provided for by
VII, Sec. Sec. law
3(2)]. 1(2)] 2. Those whom the
b. Regular President may
member be authorized
s of the by law to
JBC appoint
[1987 3. Officers lower in
Constitu rank whose
s is in
Power of the President to make appointments
session
during the recess of Congress, but such or not
appointments shall be effective only until
Require Does not
disapproval by the Commission on Appointments As to
s require
or until the next adjournment of the Congress confirm
confirm confirm
(Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, ation of
ation of ation of
2002). the
the the
Commiss
Commis Commis
Purpose of ad interim appointment ion sion sion
Ad interim appointments are intended to prevent Permanent in Temporary in
Nature
a hiatus in the discharge of official duties. nature nature
Obviously, the public office would be immobilized Appoint Appoint
to the prejudice of the people if the President had ee ee does
to wait for Congress and the Commission of As to
enjoys not
Appointments to reconvene before he could fill a security
security enjoy
vacancy occurring during the recess (Guevara v. of
of security
Inocentes, G.R. No. L-25577, March 15, 1966). tenure
tenure of
tenure
Nature of ad interim appointment
Permanent Appointment vs. Temporary
Ad interim appointments are permanent
Appointment
appointments. It is permanent because it takes
effect immediately and can no longer be
PERMANEN TEMPORARY
withdrawn by the President once the appointee
T APPOINTMEN
qualified into office. The fact that it is subject to BASIS
APPOINTME T
confirmation by the CA does not alter its
permanent character. In cases where the term of NT
said ad interim appointee had expired by virtue of Extende Given to
inaction by the Commission on Appointments, he d to persons
may be reappointed to the same position without persons without
violating the Constitutional provision prohibiting As to possessi such
an officer whose term has expired from being re- persons ng the eligibility;
appointed (Matibag v. Benipayo, G.R. No. 130657, appointe requisit
April 1, 2002). d e
eligibilit
y
NOTE: Being a permanent appointment, an ad
Not Revocable
interim appointee pending action by the
revocab at will
Commission on Appointments enjoys security of
le at will without
tenure (Marombhosar v. CA, G.R. No. 126481,
the
February 18, 2000).
necessity
of just
Ad interim appointment vs. Appointment in an As to
cause or a
Acting Capacity acts of
valid
the
investigati
APPOINTME appoin
AD INTERIM on;
NT IN AN tee
BASIS APPOINTME appointin
ACTING
NT CAPACITY g power
has full
Made at
discretion
any time
to change
Made during there is
When made the recess of vacancy,
(See further discussion under Law on Public
Congress i.e.,
Officers)
whether
Congres
President may appoint Acting Secretaries without the consent of the Commission
while the Congress is in session
Congress, through a law, cannot impose on the Prohibited appointments under Sec. 15, Art.
President the obligation to appoint automatically VII of the Constitution
the undersecretary as her temporary alter ego.
An alter ego, whether temporary or permanent, 1. Those made for buying votes– Refers to those
holds a position of great trust and confidence. The appointments made within two months
office of a department secretary may become preceding the Presidential election and are
vacant while Congress is in session. Since a similar to those which are declared election
department secretary is the alter ego of the offenses in the Omnibus Election Code; and
President, the acting appointee to the office must 2. Those made for partisan considerations–
necessarily have the President’s confidence Consists of the so-called “midnight”
(Pimentel v. Ermita, G.R. No. 164978, October 13, appointments (In Re: Hon. Valenzuela and
2005). Hon. Vallarta, A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC, November
9, 1998).
NOTE: Acting appointments cannot exceed one
year [EO 292, Book III, Title I, Chapter 5, Sec. 17 Q: Does the prohibition against appointments
(3)] provided under Sec. 15, Art VII of the
Constitution apply to appointments to the
Limitations on the appointing power of the judiciary?
President
A: NO. Art. VII is devoted to the Executive
1. The spouse and relatives by consanguinity Department. Had the framers intended to extend
or affinity within the 4th civil degree of the the prohibition contained in Sec. 15, Art. VII to the
President shall not, during his "tenure" be appointment of Members of the Supreme Court,
appointed as: they could have explicitly done so. They could not
have ignored the meticulous ordering of the
a. Members of the Constitutional provisions. They would have easily and surely
Commissions; written the prohibition made explicit in Sec. 15,
b. Member of the Office of Ombudsman; Art. VII as being equally applicable to the
c. Secretaries; appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in
d. Undersecretaries; Art. VIII itself, most likely in Sec. 4 (1), Art. VIII.
e. Chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, That such specification was not done only reveals
including government-owned or that the prohibition against the President or
controlled corporations and their Acting President making appointments within
subsidiaries (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, two months before the next presidential elections
Sec. 13[2]). and up to the end of the President’s or Acting
President’s term does not refer to the Members of
2. Appointments made by the acting-President the Supreme Court (De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No.
shall remain effective unless revoked within 191002, March 17, 2010).
90 days from assumption of office by elected
President (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. Q: President Arroyo appointed Atty. Velicaria-
14). Garafil as State Solicitor II on 5 March 2010.
3. GR: Two months immediately before the The appointment paper was transmitted on 8
next Presidential elections (2nd Monday of March 2010 and was received by the
May), and up to the end of his "term" (June Malacañang Records Office (MRO) on 13 May
30), a President (or Acting President) shall 2010. Atty. Velicaria-Garafil, on the other
not make appointments. hand, took her oath of office on 22 March 2010
and assumed thereto 6 April 2010. The cut-off
XPN: Temporary appointments, to executive date for valid presidential appointments was
positions, when continued vacancies therein on 10 March 2010 or two months preceding
will prejudice public service (1987 the 10 May 2010 elections. Upon assumption
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 15), e.g. of President Aquino III, he issued E.O. No. 2
Postmaster; or endanger public safety, e.g. recalling, withdrawing, and revoking all
Chief of Staff. (1991, 1997 Bar) midnight appointments of President Arroyo
which includes all appointments bearing
MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS dates prior to 11 March 2010 where the
appointee has accepted, or taken his oath, or
assumed
public office on or after 11 March 2010. Atty. appoint; it is still the same power to appoint. In
Velicaria-Garafil asserts the validity of her
appointment and now questions the
constitutionality of E.O. No. 2. Decide.
A: E.O. No. 2 is constitutional. Atty. Velicaria-

Garafil’s appointment is a midnight appointment
and is void for violation of Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the
1987 Constitution. Appointment to a government
post is a process that takes several steps to
complete. Any valid appointment, including one
made under the exception provided in Section 15,
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, must consist
of the President signing an appointee’s
appointment paper to a vacant office, the official
transmittal of the appointment paper (preferably
through the MRO), receipt of the appointment
paper by the appointee, and acceptance of the
appointment by the appointee evidenced by his
or her oath of office or his or her assumption to
office. The purpose of the prohibition on midnight
appointments is to prevent a President, whose
term is about to end, from preempting his
successor by appointing his own people to
sensitive positions (Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of
the President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015)
Q: Supposing that Atty. Velicaria-Garafil’s

appointment and its transmittal are made
before the ban (11 March 2010) but she took
her oath and assumed (acceptance of
appointment) as State Solicitor II only after
the ban, is the appointment still a midnight
appointment?
A: YES. The President exercises only one kind of

appointing power. There is no need to
differentiate the exercise of the President’s
appointing power outside, just before, or during
the appointment ban. The Constitution allows the
President to exercise the power of appointment
during the period not covered by the
appointment ban and disallows (subject to an
exception) the President from exercising the
power of appointment during the period covered
by the appointment ban. The concurrence of all
steps in the appointment process is
admittedly required for appointments outside
the appointment ban. There is no justification
whatsoever to remove acceptance as a
requirement in the appointment process for
appointments just before the start of the
appointment ban, or during the appointment ban
in appointments falling within the exception. The
existence of the appointment ban makes no
difference in the power of the President to
fact, considering the purpose of
the appointment ban, the POWER OF REMOVAL
concurrence of all steps in the
appointment process must be GR: From the express power of appointment, the
strictly applied on appointments President derives the implied power of removal.
made just before or during the
appointment ban (Velicaria- XPN: Not all officials appointed by the President
Garafil v. Office of the President, are also removable by him since the Constitution
ibid.). prescribes certain methods for the separation
from the public service of such officers
Prohibition on midnight e.g. impeachment
appointments only applies to
presidential appointments NOTE: The President is without any power to
remove elected local officials since the power is
The prohibition on midnight exclusively provided in the last paragraph of
appointments only applies to Section 60 of the Local Government Code.
presidential appointments. It does
not apply to appointments made by Source of the President’s Power of Removal
local chief executives. Nevertheless,
the Civil Service Commission has The President derives his implied power of
the power to promulgate rules and removal from other powers expressly vested in
regulations to professionalize the him.
civil service. It may issue rules and
regulations prohibiting local chief 1. It is implied from his power to appoint.
executives from making 2. Being executive in nature, it is implied from
appointments during the last days the constitutional provision vesting the
of their tenure. Appointments of executive power in the President.
local chief executives must conform 3. It may be implied from his function to take
to these civil service rules and care that laws be properly executed; for
regulations in order to be valid without it, his orders for law enforcement
(Provincial Government of Aurora v. might not be effectively carried out.
Marco, G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 4. The power may be implied from the
2015). President’s control over the administrative
departments, bureaus, and offices of the
government. Without the power to remove, Sec. 8(2) of RA 6770 vesting disciplinary
it would not be always possible for the authority on the President over the Deputy
President to exercise his power of control. Ombudsman violates the independence of the
Office of the Ombudsman and is, thus,
NOTE: Members of the career service of the Civil unconstitutional.
Service who are appointed by the President may
be directly disciplined by him. (Villaluz v. Subjecting the Deputy Ombudsman to
Zaldivar, discipline and removal by the President,
G.R. No. L-22754, Dec. 31, 1965) provided that the whose own alter egos and officials in the
same is for cause and in accordance with the Executive Department are subject to the
procedure prescribed by law. Ombudsman's disciplinary authority, cannot
but seriously place at risk the independence
Members of the Cabinet and such officers whose of the Office of the Ombudsman itself. The law
continuity in office depend upon the President directly collided not only with the
may be replaced at any time. Legally speaking, independence that the Constitution
their separation is effected not by the process of guarantees to the Office of the Ombudsman,
removal but by the expiration of their but inevitably with the principle of checks and
term(Aparri v. CA, G.R. No. L-30057, January 31, balances that the creation of an Ombudsman
1984). office seeks to revitalize. What is true for the
Ombudsman must be equally and necessarily
The President has no disciplinary authority true for her Deputies who act as agents of the
over the Ombudsman Ombudsman in the performance of their
duties (Gonzales III v. Ochoa, G. R. No.
196231; Barreras-Sulit v. Ochoa, G.R. No.
196232; February 26, 2014, PER J. PERLAS-
BERNABE). Q: Clarence sued PGA Cars before the DTI
pursuant to the Consumer Act (R.A. 7394) due
POWER OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION to the defect in the BMW he bought from the
latter. DTI sided with Clarence. PGA Cars
The President shall have control of all executive appealed before the Office of the President
departments, bureaus and offices. (1987 (OP) which reversed the DTI’s decision.
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 17) Clarence elevated the matter before the CA
through Rule 65 and argued that the OP had
Power of Control no appellate jurisdiction over DTI’s decision.
The OP countered that it has an appellate
The power of an officer to alter or modify or jurisdiction over DTI on the ground that the
nullify or to set aside what a subordinate has President’s power of control over the
done in the performance of his duties and to executive department grants him the power to
substitute one’s own judgment for that of a amend, modify, alter or repeal decisions of the
subordinate. department secretaries. Decide.
A: Clarence is correct. The executive power of

control over the acts of department secretaries is
laid down in Section 17, Article VII of the 1987
Constitution. The power of control has been
defined as the "power of an officer to alter or
modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate
officer had done in the performance of his duties
and to substitute the judgment of the former for
that of the latter."
Such "executive control" is not absolute. The

definition of the structure of the executive branch
of government, and the corresponding degrees of
administrative control and supervision is not the
exclusive preserve of the executive. It may be
effectively limited by the Constitution, by law, or
by judicial decisions. All the more in the matter of
appellate procedure as in the instant case.
Appeals are remedial in nature; hence,
constitutionally subject to this Court’s rulemaking
power. The Rules of Procedure was issued by the
Court pursuant to Section 5, Article VIII of the
Constitution, which expressly empowers the
Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning
the procedure in all courts.
Parenthetically, Administrative Order (A.O.) No.

18 expressly recognizes an exception to the
remedy of appeal to the Office of the President
from the decisions of executive departments and
agencies. Under Section 1 thereof, a decision or
order issued by a department or agency need not
be appealed to the Office of the President when
there is a special law that provides for a different
mode of appeal.
In this case, a special law, RA 7394, expressly

provided for immediate judicial relief from
decisions of the DTI Secretary by filing a petition
for certiorari with the "proper court." Hence,
private respondent should have elevated the case
directly to the CA through a petition for certiorari NOTE: Applying this doctrine, the power of the
(Moran v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 192957, President to reorganize the National Government
Sept. 29, 2014). may be validly delegated to his Cabinet Members
exercising control over a particular executive
NOTE: The President’s power over GOCCs comes department (DENR v. DENR Region XII Employees,
from statute, not from the Constitution, hence, it G.R. No. 149724, August 19, 2003).
may be taken away by statute.
Q: The Toll Regulatory Board (TRB) and PNCC
The President has full control of all the members executed the Amendment to the Supplemental
of his Cabinet. He may appoint them as he sees fit, Toll Operation Agreement (ASTOA). The
shuffle them at pleasure, and replace them in his ASTOA incorporated the amendments to cover
discretion without any legal inhibition whatever. the design and construction of Stage 2 of the
However, such control is exercisable by the South Metro Manila Skyway. The DOTC
President only over the acts of his subordinates Secretary then approved the ASTOA. Risa
and not necessarily over the subordinate himself. Hontiveros assailed the DOTC Secretary’s
(Ang-Angco v. Castillo, G.R. No.L-17169, November approval on the ground that it could not take
30, 1963) the place of the presidential approval
required under P.D. 1113 and P.D. 1894
DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY concerning the franchise granted to PNCC. Is
Risa Correct?
“Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency” or
“Alter Ego Principle” (2014, 2015 Bar) A: NO. The doctrine of qualified political agency
declares that, save in matters on which the
The acts of the secretaries of the Executive Constitution or the circumstances require the
departments performed and promulgated in the President to act personally, executive and
regular course of business are presumptively the administrative functions are exercised through
acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Sec. of the executive departments headed by cabinet
Interior, G.R. No. L-46570, April 21, 1939). secretaries, whose acts are presumptively the
acts of the President unless disapproved by the
XPNs to the Alter Ego doctrine latter. There can be no question that the act of the
secretary is the act of the President, unless
1. If the acts are disapproved or reprobated repudiated by the latter. In this case, approval of
by the President; the ASTOA by the DOTC Secretary had the same
2. If the President is required to act in person effect as approval by the President. The same
by law or by the Constitution. would be true even without the issuance of E.O.
e.g. executive clemency 497, in which the President, on 24 January 2006,
specifically delegated to the DOTC Secretary the
NOTE: It would appear though that doctrine of authority to approve contracts entered into by the
qualified political agency would not be applicable TRB. Risa’s reliance on P.D. 1113 and P.D. 1894 is
to acts of cabinet secretaries done in their misplaced. When we say that the approval by the
capacity as ex-officio board directors of a GOCC of DOTC Secretary in this case was approval by the
which they become a member not by President, it was not in connection with the
appointment of the President but by authority of franchise of PNCC, as required under P.D. 1113
law (See: Trade and Investment Development and P.D. 1894. Rather, the approval was in
Corporation of the Philippines v. Manalang- connection with the powers of the TRB to enter
Demigillo, G.R. Nos. 168613 & 185571). into contracts on behalf of the government as
provided under Section 3(a) of P.D. 1112
Essence of the Alter Ego doctrine (Hontiveros-Baraquel v. Toll Regulatory Board,
G.R. No. 181293, February 23, 2015).
Since the President is a busy man, he is not
expected to exercise the totality of his power of Q: Atty. Alcantara questioned R.A. 9337 which
control all the time. He is not expected to exercise authorizes the President, upon
all his powers in person. He is expected to recommendation of the Secretary of Finance,
delegate some of them to men of his confidence, to raise the VAT rate to 12%. Atty. Alcantara
particularly to members of his Cabinet. argues that said law is unconstitutional since
the law effectively nullified the President’s
power of control over the Secretary of Finance
by mandating the raising of the VAT rate upon
the latter’s recommendation. Is Atty. Power of General Supervision

Alcantara correct?
A: NO. In making his recommendation to the

President, the Secretary of Finance is not acting
as the alter ego of the President or even her
subordinate. In such instance, he is not subject to
the power of control and direction of the
President. He is acting as the agent of the
legislative department, to determine and declare
the event upon which its expressed will is to take
effect. The Secretary of Finance becomes the
means or tool by which legislative policy is
determined and implemented, considering that
he possesses all the facilities to gather data and
information and has a much broader perspective
to properly evaluate them. Thus, being the agent
of Congress and not of the President, the
President cannot alter or modify or nullify, or set
aside the findings of the Secretary of Finance and
to substitute the judgment of the former for that
of the latter(ABAKADA v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No.
168056, September 1, 2005).
NOTE: As a rule, an aggrieved party need not

appeal to the Office of the President the decision
of a cabinet secretary and may file a petition for
certiorari directly with the court assailing the act
of the said secretary. His acts are presumed to be
of the President’s unless disapproved or
reprobated by him (Manubay v. Garilao, G.R. No.
140717, April 16, 2009).
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICES
Department Heads may exercise power of

control in behalf of the President including
the power to reverse the judgment of an
inferior officer.
For instance, the Sec. of Justice may reverse the

judgment of a prosecutor and direct him to
withdraw information already filed. One, who
disagrees, however, may appeal to the Office of
the President in order to exhaust administrative
remedies prior filing to the court.
Also, the Executive Secretary when acting “by

authority of the President” may reverse the
decision of another department secretary
(Lacson- Magallanes v. Paño, G.R. No. L-27811,
November 17, 1967).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

The power of a superior officer to ensure that the Constitution. Any directive, therefore, by the
laws are faithfully executed by subordinates. President or any of his alter egos seeking to alter
the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on
The power of the President over LGUs is only of local affairs of a LGU is a patent nullity, because it
general supervision. Thus, he can only interfere in the violates the principle of local autonomy, as well as
affairs and activities of a LGU if he finds that the latter the doctrine of separation of powers of the
acted contrary to law. executive and the legislative departments in
governing municipal corporations (Dadole v. COA,
The President or any of his alter egos cannot interfere G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002).
in local affairs as long as the concerned LGU acts
within the parameters of the law and the Control vs. Supervision
BASIS does not

The Constitution CONTROL SUPERVISION
require the President to declare
NOTE: The power of supervision does not include a state of rebellion to exercise her calling
The out power. Sec.
the power of control; but the power of control 18, Art. VII grants the President,
An as Commander-in-
supervisor or Chief
necessarily includes the power of supervision. a “sequence” of “graduated
officer powers”
in (Sanlakas v. Exec.
superintende
Sec., G.R. No. 159085, February
control 3, 2004).nt(2015
merelyBar)
MILITARY POWERS lays sees to it that
3. SUSPENSION of the privilege
Nature down of the
thewrit
rules of
arehabeas
Scope of the President’s Commander-in-Chief corpus the rules followed, but
Powers in the he himself
doing of does not lay
1. COMMAND OF THE ARMED FORCES – an act. down such
absolute authority over the persons and rules.
actions of the members of the armed forces The
(Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, Aug. 15, supervisor
2006). If the rules does not
are not have the
NOTE: By making the President the followed, discretion to
Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces, the officer modify or
the principle announced in Sec. 3, Art. II is in control replace them.
bolstered. Thus, the Constitution lessens the may, in his If the rules
danger of a military take-over of the discretion, are not
government in violation of its republican As to order the observed, he
nature. discreti act may order
on of the undone or the work
The President as Commander-in-Chief can officer re-done by done or re-
prevent the Army General from appearing in his done but
a legislative investigation and, if disobeyed, subordina only to
can subject him to court martial (Gudani v. te or he conform to
Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006). may even the
decide to prescribed
2. CALLING-OUT POWERS – Call the armed do it rules. (Drilon
forces to prevent or suppress lawless himself. v. Lim, G.R.
violence, invasion, or rebellion. The only No. 112497,
criterion for the exercise of this power is Aug. 4, 1994)
that whenever it becomes necessary.
NOTE: The declaration of a state of

emergency is merely a description of a
situation which authorizes her to call out the
Armed Forces to help the police maintain
law and order. It gives no new power to her,
nor to the police. Certainly, it does not
authorize warrantless arrests or control of
media (David v. GMA, G.R. No. 171409, May 3,
2006).
(2015 Bar)
NOTE: What is permitted to be the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. (1987
suspended by the President is Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 13)
not the writ itself but its
privilege. Limitations on the suspension of the privilege
of writ of habeas corpus
WRIT OF HABEAS PRIVILEGE OF THE
CORPUS WRIT 1. Applies only to persons judicially charged
An order from the That portion of for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
court commanding a the writ directly connected with invasion; and
detaining officer to requiring the 2. Anyone arrested or detained during
inform the court if he detaining suspension must be charged within 3
has the person in officer to show days. Otherwise, he should be released.
custody, and what his cause why he
basis is in detaining should not be Role of the Supreme Court in reviewing the
that person. tested. factual bases of the promulgation of the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
Requisites for the suspension of habeas corpus
the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus Although the Constitution reserves to the
Supreme Court the power to review the
1. There must be an invasion or rebellion; and sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation
2. Public safety requires the suspension or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that
the Court must allow Congress to exercise its own
NOTE: The invasion and rebellion must be actual review powers, which is automatic rather than
and not merely imminent. initiated. Only when Congress defaults in its
express duty to defend the Constitution through
Non-impairment of the right to bail such review should the Supreme Court step in as
its final rampart. The constitutional validity of the
The right to bail shall not be President’s proclamation of martial law or
impaired even when the privilege of suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a
political question in the hands of Congress

before it becomes a justiciable one in the It is evident that under the 1987 Constitution
hands of the Court. (Fortun v. GMA, G.R. No. the President and the Congress exercise the
190293, March 20, 2012) power sequentially and jointly since, after the
President has initiated the proclamation or the
3. He may proclaim MARTIAL LAW over the suspension, only the Congress can maintain
entire Philippines or any part thereof. the same based on its own evaluation of the
situation on the ground, a power that the
Nature of martial law President does not have (Fortun
v. GMA, ibid.).
Martial law is a joint power of the President and
the Congress. Thus: (60-48-24-jointly) Guidelines in the declaration of martial
law (IR-PS-60-48-jointly)
1. The President’s proclamation or suspension
is temporary, good for only 60 days; 1. There must be an Invasion or Rebellion,
2. He must, within 48 hours of the and
proclamation or suspension, report his 2. Public Safety requires the proclamation
action in person or in writing to Congress; of martial law all over the Philippines or
3. Both houses of Congress, if not in session any part thereof.
must jointly convene within 24 hours of the 3. Duration: Not more than 60 days
proclamation or suspension for the purpose following which it shall be automatically
of reviewing its validity; and lifted unless extended by Congress.
4. The Congress, voting jointly, may revoke or 4. Duty of the President to report to
affirm the President’s proclamation or Congress: within 48 hours personally or
suspension, allow their limited effectivity to in writing.
lapse, or extend the same if Congress deems 5. Authority of Congress to affirm or revoke
warranted. or allow the lapse or extend the effectivity
of proclamation: by majority vote of all its
members voting jointly. Limitations on the declaration of martial law
NOTE: Once revoked by Congress, the President 1. It does not suspend the operation of the
cannot set aside the revocation. Constitution;
2. It does not supplant the functioning of the
civil courts or legislative assemblies;
3. It does not authorize conferment of
jurisdiction over civilians where civil courts
are able to function;
NOTE: Civilians cannot be tried by military

courts if the civil courts are open and
functioning. (Open Court Doctrine)
(Olaguer
v. Military Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-
54558, May 22, 1987).
4. It does not automatically suspend the

privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (1987
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 18 (2)].
NOTE: When martial law is declared, no new

powers are given to the President; no extension
of arbitrary authority is recognized; no civil rights
of individuals are suspended. The relation of the
citizens to their State is unchanged. The Supreme
Court cannot rule upon the correctness of the
President’s actions but only upon its
arbitrariness.
Ways to lift the proclamation of martial law
1. Lifting by the President himself

2. Revocation by Congress
3. Nullification by the SC
4. By operation of law after 60 days
Q: In light of recent attacks in Marawi City by

the Maute group and other terrorist
organizations, President Duterte declared a
state of martial law and suspended the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the
whole of Mindanao, invoking as factual basis a
written report pointing out that for decades,
Mindanao has been plagued with rebellion
and lawless violence which only escalated and
worsened with the passing of time and the
strategic location of Marawi City and its
crucial role in Mindanao and the Philippines
as a whole. Is the factual basis for the
proclamation enough, and therefore
constitutional?
A: YES. The President deduced from the facts

available to him that there was an armed public
uprising, the culpable purpose of which was to
remove from the allegiance to the Philippine
Government a portion of its territory and to deprive prerogative, leading the President to believe
the Chief Executive of any of his powers and
that there was probable cause that the crime of proclamation of martial law. [Padilla v. Congress, 25 July 2017]
rebellion was and is being committed and that
public safety requires the imposition of martial
law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus. Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution itself sets the parameters for
determining the sufficiency of the factual basis for
the declaration of martial law and/or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, namely (1) actual invasion or rebellion,
and (2) public safety requires the exercise of such
power. Without the concurrence of the two
conditions, the President's declaration of martial
law and/or suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus must be struck down. A review
of the aforesaid facts similarly leads the Court to
conclude that the President, in issuing
Proclamation No. 216, had sufficient factual bases
tending to show that actual rebellion exists. The
President's conclusion, that there was an armed
public uprising, the culpable purpose of which
was the removal from the allegiance of the
Philippine Government a portion of its territory
and the deprivation of the President from
performing his powers and prerogatives, was
reached after a tactical consideration of the facts.
In fine, the President satisfactorily discharged his
burden of proof. After all, what the President
needs to satisfy is only the standard of probable
cause for a valid declaration of martial law and
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. (Lagman v. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658,
July 4, 2017).
Q: Does Congress have the mandatory duty to

convene and meet in joint session upon the
President's proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus? Explain.
A: NO. Congress is not constitutionally mandated

to convene in joint session except to vote jointly
to revoke the President's declaration or
suspension. By the language of Article VII, Section
18 of the 1987 Constitution, the Congress is only
required to vote jointly to revoke the President's
proclamation of martial law and/or suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. If
Congress does not want to revoke or lift the
declaration of martial law, then there is no need
for them to meet in joint session. It is worthy to
stress that the provision does not actually refer to
a "joint session.” The requirement of voting
jointly explicitly applies only to the situation
when the Congress revokes the President's
Role of the Supreme Court in
inquiring into the factual bases NOTE: There is sufficient factual basis for the
of the President’s declaration declaration of Martial Law or the suspension of
Martial Law (ML) the privilege of the writ if from the facts
available to
The power of the Court to review
the sufficiency of the factual basis
under Sec. 18, Art VII of the
Constitution is independent of the
actions taken by Congress.
The Court can simultaneously

exercise its power of review with,
and independently from the power
to revoke by Congress. Corollary,
any perceived inaction or default
on the part of Congress does not
deprive or deny the Court its power
to review.
JUDICIAL CONGRESSIONAL
POWER TO POWER TO REVOKE
REVIEW
Court may strike Congress may revoke the
down the proclamation/suspension,
presidential which revocation shall not
proclamation in be set aside by the
an appropriate President.
proceeding filed
by any citizen on
the ground of lack
of sufficient
factual basis.
Court considers May take into
only the consideration not only
information and data available prior to, but
data available to likewise events
the President supervening the
prior to or at the declaration.
time of the
declaration; it is
not allowed to
undertake an
independent
investigation
beyond the
pleadings.
Does not look into Could probe deeper and
the absolute further; it can delve into
correctness of the the accuracy of the facts
factual basis. presented before it.
Review power is Review mechanism is
passive – only automatic in the sense
initiated by the that it may be activated by
filing of a petition Congress itself at any time
“in an appropriate after the proclamation of
proceeding” by a suspension was made.
citizen.
the President, it led him to believe that there was ng grave possible Review
PROBABLE CAUSE that the crime of rebellion was abuse of nullifica- and
and is being committed and that the public discretio tion by the possible
safety requires it. After all, only the standard of n. SC nullifica-
probable cause is what the President needs to tion by
satisfy. But the SC
generally,
Power of Judicial Review vis-à-vis Military president
Powers of the President has full
discretio
The power of judicial review does NOT extend to n
calibrating the President’s decision pertaining to
which extraordinary power to avail given a set of Subject Actual YES. YES.
facts or conditions. to use to Limited to Limited
judicial which the to the
review? President determina determin
puts the -tion of a-tion of
armed whether whether
forced the the
NOT President President
subject to had had
judicial sufficient sufficient
factual factual
basis. basis.
NOTE: Graduation of powers refers to hierarchy

based on scope and effect; it does not refer to
sequence, order, or arrangement by which the
Commander-in- Chief must adhere to. The power
to choose, initially, which among the
extraordinary powers to wield in a given set of
conditions is a judgment call on the part of the
President. A plain reading of Sec. 18, Art. VII
shows that the President’s power to declare ML is
not subject to any condition except for the
requirements of actual invasion or rebellion and
that public safety requires it. No need for
recommendation of the Defense Secretary.
Territorial Coverage of ML or the Suspension

of the Privilege of the Writ of HC
The 1987 Constitution grants to the President, as

Commander-in-Chief, the discretion to determine
the territorial coverage or application of ML or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of HC.
There is no constitutional edict that ML should be
confined only in the particular place where the
armed public uprising actually transpired. The
President’s duty to maintain peace and public
safety is not limited only to the place where there
is actual rebellion; it extends to other areas where
the present hostilities are in danger of spilling
over.
Calling out power does not need

Congressional authority
71
BASIS CALLING SUSPENS ML
OUT I ON OF
THE
PRIVILLE
GE
Charact Most Involve Involve
er benign curtailmen curtailme
and t and nt and
involves suppressio suppre-
ordinary n of civil ssion of
police rights and civil
action individual rights
freedom and
individua
l freedom
When Wheneve Only when Only

may the r it there is when
Preside becomes actual there is
nt necessar invasion, actual
resort y to rebellion, invasion,
to this prevent and public rebellion,
power? or safety and
suppress requires it. public
lawless safety
violence, requires
invasion, it.
or
rebellion.
Limitati President 1. Time 1. Time

on must act limit of limit of
within 60 days; 60
permissi 2. Review days;
ble and 2. Review
constituti possible and
o-nal revoca- possibl
bounda- tion by e
ries or in Congres revoca-
a manner s tion by
not Review Congre
constituti and ss;
would require new legislation and constitutional
amendments, or should the reforms be restricted only to
There is no need for congressional authority to those solutions which the present laws allow?
exercise the calling out power of the President
since calling out of the armed forces to prevent or A: If the President is to be expected to find means for bringing
suppress lawless violence is a power that the this conflict to an end and to achieve lasting peace in Mindanao,
Constitution directly vests in the President. As in then he must be given the leeway to explore, during peace
the case where the President did not proclaim a negotiations, solutions that may require changes to the
national emergency but only a state of emergency Constitution for their implementation. So long as the President
in 3 places in Mindanao and she did not act limits himself to recommending these changes and submits to
pursuant to any law enacted by Congress that the proper procedure for constitutional amendment and
authorized her to exercise extraordinary powers revision, his mere recommendation need not be construed as
(Ampatuan v. Hon. Puno, G.R. No. 190259, June 7, unconstitutional act. Given the limited nature of the President’s
2011). authority to propose constitutional amendments, he cannot
guarantee to any third party that the required amendments will
Q: May the President, in the exercise of peace eventually be put in place, nor even be submitted to a plebiscite.
negotiations, agree to pursue reforms that The most she could do is submit these proposals as
recommendations either to Congress or the
people, in whom constituent powers are vested discretion, the Court will accord respect to the
(Province of North Cotabato v. GRPs Peace panel President’s judgment (Ampatuan v. Hon. Puno,
on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, G.R. No. 190259. June 7, 2011).
2008).
EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY
Role of the Supreme Court in inquiring into
the factual bases of the President’s Pardon
declaration of a state of national emergency
An act of grace, which exempts individual on
While it is true that the Court may inquire into the whom it is bestowed from punishment, which the
factual bases for the President’s exercise of the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. As a
above power, it would generally defer to her consequence, pardon granted after conviction
judgment on the matter. It is clearly to the frees the individual from all the penalties and
President that the Constitution entrusts the legal disabilities and restores him to all his civil
determination of the need for calling out the rights. But unless expressly grounded on the
armed forces to prevent and suppress lawless person’s innocence (which is rare), it cannot
violence. Unless it is shown that such bring back lost reputation for honesty, integrity
determination was attended by grave abuse of and fair dealing. (Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. No.
78239, Feb. 9, 1989)
NOTE: Because pardon is an act of grace, no legal

power can compel the President to give it.
Congress has no authority to limit the effects of
the President’s pardon, or to exclude from its
scope any class of offenders. Courts may not
inquire into the wisdom or reasonableness of any
pardon granted by the President.
Purpose of pardon
To relieve the harshness of the law or correcting

mistakes in the administration of justice. The
power of executive clemency is a non-delegable
power and must be exercised by the President
personally.
NOTE: Clemency is not a function of the judiciary;

it is an executive function. The grant is
discretionary, and may not be controlled by the
legislature (Congress) as to limit the effects of the
President’s pardon, or to exclude from its scope
any class of offenders. Also, the Courts may not
inquire into the wisdom or reasonableness of any
pardon granted by the President or have it
reversed, save only when it contravenes its
limitations. It includes cases involving both
criminal and administrative cases.
Kinds of executive clemency (FPARC)
1. Pardons (conditional or plenary);

2. Reprieves;
3. Commutations;
4. Remission of Fines and Forfeitures; and
5. Amnesty
NOTE:
71
a. Plenary pardon– Extinguishes all
Executive Clemency Requirement the
Pardons
Reprieves
Commutatio Requires
ns conviction
by final
Remission of
judgment
Fines
and Forfeitures
Requires
concurren
Amnesty
ce of
Congress
Limitations on the President’s Pardoning

Powers (CAN-F, CANNOT-CLIEP) (2015 BAR)
1. Can be granted only after conviction by

Final judgment
XPN: AMNESTY
2. Cannot be granted in cases of civil or
legislative Contempt.
3. Cannot absolve convict of civil Liability.
4. Cannot be granted in cases of
Impeachment.
5. Cannot be granted for violations of
Election laws without favorable
recommendations of the COMELEC.
Ratio: The COMELEC is an independent
body.
6. Cannot restore Public offices forfeited.
Kinds of pardon
As to presence of condition:
a. Absolute pardon– One extended without any
conditions; totally extinguishes criminal
liability (See: RPC, Art. 89[4]).
b. Conditional pardon – One under which the
convict is required to comply with certain
requirements.
Q: Mateo was convicted of Homicide but was

later on granted conditional pardon by the
president. When Mateo was filling up his
personal data sheet for employment in public
office, he did not disclose the existence of a
prior criminal conviction for homicide. Can
Mateo be employed as a public employee?
A: NO. The pardon granted to Mateo is one of

Conditional Pardon, the pardon did not expressly
remit the accessory penalty of Homicide which is
perpetual absolute disqualification from holding
public office or employment (Mateo v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 177875, Aug 8, 2016).
As to effect:
73
petitioners tenable?
penalties imposed upon the offender, including Q: Former
accessory disabilities President Estrada A: NO. Former President
b. Partial pardon– Does not extinguish all the was convicted of Estrada, who was convicted
penalties; partially extinguishes criminal liability the crime of for the crime of plunder by
[See: RPC, Art. 94(1)]. plunder by the the Sandiganbayan, was
Sandiganbayan. He granted an absolute
NOTE: A judicial pronouncement that a convict who was granted an pardon that fully restored
was granted a pardon subject to the condition that executive clemency all his civil and political
he should not again violate any penal law is not by Former rights, which naturally
necessary before he can be declared to have violated President includes the right to seek
the condition of her pardon (Torres v. Gonzales, G.R. Macapagal-Arroyo. public elective office. The
No. L-76872, July 23, 1987). In 2013, he ran for wording of the pardon
the position of extended to him is
Effects of the grant of pardon Mayor of Manila, complete, unambiguous and
and won the unqualified. He is therefore
The grant of pardon from the President: election. eligible for the post of
Mayor of Manila.
1. Frees the individual from all the penalties and Atty Risos-Vidal,
legal disabilities imposed upon him by the and, former Mayor The pardoning power of the
sentence, and of Manila, Alfredo President cannot be
Lim question the limited by legislative
NOTE: RPC, Article 36. Pardon; its effect: A eligibility of action. It is a presidential
pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from Estrada to hold an prerogative, which may not
the payment of the civil indemnity elective post. They be interfered with by
contend that the Congress or the Court,
2. Restores to him all his civil and political rights. pardon granted by except when it exceeds the
Pres. Arroyo to the limits provided by the
NOTE: RPC, Article 36. Pardon; its effect: A latter was a Constitution. Articles 36
pardon shall not work the restoration of the conditional pardon and 41 of the RPC should
right to hold public office, or the right of as it did not thus be construed in a way
suffrage, unless such rights be expressly expressly provide that will give full effect to
restored by the terms of the pardon. for the remission of the executive clemency
the penalty of instead of indulging in an
Options of the convict when granted pardon perpetual absolute overly strict
disqualification interpretation that may
1. Conditional Pardon– The offender has the especially the serve to impair or diminish
right to reject it since he may feel that the restoration of the the import of the pardon
condition imposed is more onerous than the right to vote and be which emanated from the
penalty sought to be remitted. voted for public Office of the President, and
2. Absolute Pardon– The pardonee has no option office, as required duly signed by the Chief
at all and must accept it whether he likes it or by Articles 36 and Executive herself.
not. 41 of the Revised
Penal Code. The third preambular
NOTE: In this sense, an absolute pardon is clause is not an integral
similar to commutation, which is also not They further part of the decree of the
subject to acceptance by the offender. contend that the pardon and therefore, does
third preambular not by itself operate to
Pardon does not ipso facto restore former office clause in the make the pardon
and his rights and privileges pardon, which conditional or to make its
states that Estrada effectivity contingent upon
Pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted felon had publicly the fulfillment of the
neither to his former public office nor to his rights committed to no commitment nor to limit
and privileges, which were necessarily relinquished longer seek any the scope of the pardon.
or forfeited by reason of the conviction although elective position or
such pardon undoubtedly office, disqualifies
him from the post
restores his eligibility (Monsanto v. Factoran, G.R. of Mayor. Is the
to that office No. 78239, February 9, 1989). contention of the
Estrada had The not have to
publicly reducti be in any
Thus, committed to on or particular
Atty. no longer seek mitigat form. Thus,
Risos- any elective ion of the fact that a
Vidal position or the convict was
and office, penalt released after
former disqualifies y, from 6 years and
Manila him from the death placed under
Mayor post of Mayor penalt house arrest,
Lim’s are untenable y to which is not a
contenti (Risos-Vidal v. life penalty,
ons that Estrada, G.R. impris already leads
the said No. 206666, onmen to the
pardon January 21, t, conclusion
granted 2015) remitt that the
was a ances penalty has
conditio Forms of Executive and been
nal Clemency fines. shortened.
pardon Comm
as it did 1. Reprieve utation Judicial
not 2. Commutations is a power to
expressl 3. Remission of fines and pardo pass upon
y forfeitures n in the validity
provide 4. Probation form of the
for the 5. Parole but not actions of
remissio 6. Amnesty in the
n of the substa President in
penalty Reprieve nce, granting
of becaus executive
perpetu The e it clemency
al postponement does
absolute of sentence to a not
disquali date certain or affect
fication stay of his
especial execution. guilt; it
ly the merely
restorat NOTE: It may reduce
ion of be ordered to s the
the right enable the penalt
to vote government to y for
and be secure reason
voted additional s of
for evidence to public
public ascertain the interes
office, as guilt of the t
require convict or, in rather
d by the the case of the than
RPC and execution of for the
that the the death sole
third sentence upon benefit
preamb a pregnant of the
ular woman, to offend
clause prevent the er.
in the killing of her
pardon, unborn child. NOTE:
which Comm
states Commutation utation
that does
75
The SC is not deciding a political question in e
reviewing the correctness of the action of the
President in granting executive clemency by Parole
commuting the penalty of dismissal to a
dismissed clerk of court. What it is deciding is The suspension of the sentence of a convict
whether or not the l
Pre po
sid we
ent r
has to
the pa
po ss
wer up
to on
co th
mm e
ute va
the lid
pen ity
alty of
of th
the e
sai ac
d tio
cler ns
k of of
cou th
rt. e
As ot
stat he
ed r
in de
Daz pa
a v. rt
Sin m
gso en
n ts
(G. of
R. th
No. e
877 Go
21- ve
30, rn
Dec me
em nt.
ber
21, Re
198 mi
9), ssi
it is on
wit of
hin fin
the es
sco an
pe d
of for
jud fei
icia tu
res possess the granted rs o
disqualifications by a T either r
Merely prevents under P.D. No. Parole h after i
the collection of 968, as Board e convic t
fines or the amended. after tion or y
confiscation of Likewise, the serving g even
forfeited Probation Law is the r before o
property. It not a penal law minimu a the f
cannot have the for it to be m term n charge a
effect of returning liberally of the t s is l
property which construed to indeter filed. It l
has been vested in favor the minate o is the t
third parties or accused sentence f form h
money already in (Maruhom v. penalty, of e
the public People, G.R. No. without g executi
treasury. 206513, October granting ve m
e
20, 2015). cleme e
a n
NOTE: The power ncy m
pardon, e
of the President to Probation vs. Pardon which b
prescribi r
remit BASIS
fines and PROBATIO e
PARDON ng the a under
r
forfeitures may N terms l the
s
not be limited by Judicial Executiv upon p Constit
o
any
Natureact of in e in which a ution
f
Congress. But a nature nature the r may
C
statute may May be Requires sentence d be
o
validly authorize granted convictio shall be o grante n
other
When officers, after n by final suspend n d by g
such
applicabl as actual judgmen ed. the r
department
e heads service t t Presid e
or bureau chiefs, of Par o ent s
to remit sentenc ole only s
administrative vs. a with (
fines and Par the 1
forfeitures. don c concur 9
l rence 8
Probation a of the 7
s legislat
A disposition s ure. C
under which a o
defendant after o Requisite n
conviction and f s of s
sentence is amnesty t
released subject p i
to conditions o 1. C t
imposed by the l o u
court and to the i n t
supervision of a t c i
probation officer. i u o
Nature c r n
NOTE: It is not a a r ,
right granted to a l e A
convicted o n r
offender; it is a f c t
special privilege f e .
granted by the e o V
State to a penitent Am n f I
qualified offender, nes d a I
who does not ty e m ,
aj
75
Sec. 19); and The total s
2. A previous extinguishment of Sour d a
admission of the criminal ces ind s c
guilt (Vera v. liability and of the of ep h
People, G.R. No. penalty and all its the en H i
L-18184, effects. Amnesty Presi de e e
January 31, reaches back to the dent’ nc a f
1963). past and erases s e d
whatever shade of diplo a
Effects of the grant of guilt there was. In mati N o r
amnesty the eyes of the law, c O f c
a powe T h
rs E S i
person granted NOTE: The right to the : t t
amnesty is considered benefits of amnesty, once 1. T a e
a new-born child. established by the evidence h B t c
presented either by the e y e t
Amnesty vs. Pardon complainant or prosecution, ,
or by the defense, cannot be C r o
BASIS AMNESTY waived, because it is of o e h f
Addressedpublic interest that a person n a e
Nature of the
to Politicalwho is regarded by the s s o
offense offenses Amnesty Proclamation t o i r
As to Granted towhich has the force of a law, i n s
whom a class of not only as innocent, for he t s
granted persons stands in the eyes of the law u o t p
Requires as if he had never committed t f h o
concurrencany punishable offense i e k
As to (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, o t
e of e
concurrenc
majority ofG.R. No. L-1278, January 21, n h l s
e of 1949). 2. T e
all o m
Congress h
members g a
Congress POWERS PERTINENT TO e P i n
Public act FOREIGN RELATIONS r c
which the s e a i
Nature of s
court may t l n
the act i
take judicial a
notice of t d c f
Looks u e h o
backward s n o r
and puts to t i e
As to oblivion the o ' c i
perspectiv offense f s e g
e itself n
s u a
o n s r
v i e
May be e q t l
granted r u h a
When before or e e e t
granted after i i
conviction g p n o
n o a n
Need t s t s
As to not be y i i .
acceptance accepte t o T
d a i n h
n o ' e
n
Senate, ement r o e n
on the requires e . e t
other the q m e
hand, is concurrenc u 1 e r
granted e of the i 5 n n
the right Senate, r 9 t a
to share (Art. VII, e 6 t
in the Sec. 21) 1 i i
treaty- which may l 8 s o
making opt to do e , n
power of the g a a
the following: i F l
Presiden s e “
t by a. Approve with 2/3 l b t l
concurri majority; a r r a
ng with b. Disapprove outright; t u e w
him with or i a a
the right c. Approv v r t a
to e e y y n
amend. conditi ” d
onally, c 1
Scope of with o , w c
the sugges n i o
foreign ted c n
2 t
relation amend u s
0 h
s ments r t
1 i
powers which r i
1 n
of the if re- e ) t
Preside negotia n . t u
nt (N- ted and c h t
ARC- the e ( e e
DP- Senate’
2 s
Reco) s ( 0 m
sugges B e
1. Neg 1 e
tions a n
otiat 5 a
are y f
e n
incorp a o
treat orated, B i
n a n r
ies the
and r g c
treaty M e
othe )
will go u a
r into o
inter n A f b
effect a l
nati n
withou e
onal t need t
agre v e h
of
eme . x a d
further
nts. R e t o
Senate
How o c m
approv
ever m u w e
al.
, u t o s
such l i r t
NOTE:
treat o v d i
Executiv
y or , e c
e
inter G
agreeme i
nati . a l
nts, n
onal R g a
however
agre . r w
, do not i
N
75
(N hina
ic Nati
ol onal
as Mac
v. hine
Ro ry
m and
ul Equi
o, pme
G. nt
R. Corp
N orati
o. on v.
17 Sta.
58 Mari
88 a,
, G.R. No. 185572,
Fe February 7, 2012).
br
ua Role of the Senate
ry
11 The role of
, the Senate,
20 however, is
09 limited
). only to
giving or
Requisites of withholdin
Executive g its
Agreement consent, or
(under Vienna concurrenc
Convention): e, to the
ratification.
a) The It should
agreement be
must be emphasize
between d that
states; under our
b) It must be Constitutio
written; and n, the
c) It
m
us
t
be
go
ve
rn
ed
by
in
te
rn
ati
on
al
la
w
(C

power to ratify is vested in the President,
subject to the concurrence of the Senate. Q: The members of the MALAYA LOLAS, a non-
stock, non-profit organization, established for
Hence, it is within the authority of the the purpose of providing aid to the victims of
President to refuse to submit a treaty to the rape by Japanese military forces in the
Senate or, having secured its consent for its Philippines during the Second World War,
ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although the claim that since 1998, they have approached
refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has the Executive Department through the DOJ,
been signed in its behalf is a serious step that DFA, and OSG, requesting assistance in filing a
should not be taken lightly, such decision is claim against the Japanese officials and
within the competence of the President alone. military officers who ordered the
(Pimentel v. Exec. Sec., G.R. No. 158088, July 6, establishment of the comfort women stations
2005) in the Philippines. However, officials of the
Executive Department declined to assist the
2. Appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, petitioners and took the position that the
and consuls. individual claims of the comfort women for
3. Receive ambassadors and other public compensation had already been fully satisfied
ministers accredited to the Philippines. by Japans compliance with the Peace Treaty
4. Contract and guarantee foreign loans on between the Philippines and Japan. Hence,
behalf of RP (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. they file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule
20). (1994, 1999 Bar) 65 of the Rules of Court with an application for
5. Deport aliens – the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory
injunction. Will the action prosper?
a. This power is vested in the President by
virtue of his office, subject only to A: NO. The Constitution has entrusted to the
restrictions as may be provided by Executive Department the conduct of foreign
legislation as regards to the grounds for relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to
deportation (Revised Administrative espouse petitioners' claim against the
Code, Sec. 69). Government of Japan is left to the exclusive
b. In the absence of any legislative determination and judgment of the Executive
restriction to authority, the President Department. The Court cannot interfere with or
may still exercise this power. question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign
c. The power to deport aliens is limited by relations by the Executive Department.
the requirements of due process, which Accordingly, the court cannot direct the Executive
entitles the alien to a full and fair hearing. Department, either by writ of certiorari or
NOTE: Summary deportation shall be injunction, to conduct our foreign relations with
observed in cases where the charge Japan in a certain manner (Vinuya v. Executive
against the alien is overstaying or Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010).
expiration of his passport. (Board of
Commissioners v. Jong Keun Park, G.R. No. RULES ON SUCCESSION
159835, January 21, 2010)
d. An alien has the right to apply for bail Rules to be applied if there is vacancy before
provided certain standard for the grant is the beginning of the term of the President.
necessarily met (Government of Hong (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec 7)
Kong v. Olalia, G.R. No. 153675, April 19,
2007). CAUSE OF VACANCY CONSEQUENCE
NOTE: The adjudication of facts upon which In case of death or The Vice-President
the deportation is predicated devolved on the permanent elect shall become
President whose decision is final and disability of the President.
President-elect.
77
executory (Tan Tong v. Deportation Board, In case of failure to The Vice-President
G.R. No. L-7680, April 30, 1955). elect the President shall act as the
(i.e. Presidential President until the
6. Decide that a diplomatic officer who has elections have not President shall have
become Persona non grata be recalled. been held or non- been chosen and
7. Recognize governments and withdraw completion of the qualified.
recognition. canvass of the
Presidential Rules and procedure to be followed if a

elections) vacancy occurs in the offices of the President
In case no President The Senate President, and Vice-President. (1987 Constitution, Art. VII,
and Vice-President or in case of his Sec. 10)
shall have been inability, the Speaker
chosen and of the HoR shall act as 1. At 10:00 A.M. of the third day after said
qualified, or where President until a vacancy occurs – Congress shall convene in
both shall have died President or a Vice- accordance with its rules without need of
or become President shall have call.
permanently been chosen and 2. Within 7 days — Congress shall enact a law
disabled. qualified. calling for a special election to elect a
President and a Vice President.
Congress shall by law 3. Said special election shall be held — Not
provide for the manner earlier than forty-five (45) days nor later
in which one who is to than sixty (60) days from the time of such
act as President shall call.
be selected until a 4. The bill calling such special election — Shall
President or a Vice- be deemed certified under Sec. 26, par. 2,
President shall have Art. VI of the Constitution and shall become
qualified, in case of law upon its approval on third reading by
death, permanent Congress.
disability or inability of 5. Appropriations for said special election —
the officials. Shall be charged against any current
appropriations and shall be exempt from the
Limitation on the power of the Acting requirements of, Sec. 25, par. 4, Art. VI of the
President Constitution.
6. The convening of Congress and the special
Appointments extended by an Acting President election — cannot be suspended or postponed
shall remain effective, unless revoked by the 7. No special election shall be called — If the
elected President, within 90 days from his vacancy occurs within eighteen (18) months
assumption or reassumption of office (1987 before the date of the next presidential
Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 14). elections.
Rules to be applied if the vacancy occurs during Instances when there is presidential inability
the incumbency of the President to discharge powers and duties of his office
CAUSE OF CONSEQUENCE
VACANCY
INSTANCE CONSEQUENCE
In case of : (DPR2) The Vice President
a. Death; shall become the When the President The powers and
b. Permanent President to serve the transmits to the Senate duties of his office
Disability; unexpired term. President and to the shall be discharged
c. Removal from Speaker of the HoR his by the Vice-
office; or written declaration President as Acting
d. Resignation of the that he is unable to President.
President discharge the powers
In case of : The Senate and duties of his office.
a. Death; President, or in case
b. Permanent of his inability, the
Disability; Speaker of the HoR,
c. Removal from shall act as President
office;Uor until the President or
NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 78
2 0 1 9 G O L D E N NVice
d. Resignation of both OTES
President shall
the President and have ben elected and
the Vice-President qualified.
When a majority of all The Vice-President
the members of the shall immediately
Cabinet transmit to the assume the powers
Senate President and to and duties of the
the Speaker of the HoR office as Acting
their written President.
declaration that the
President is unable
to discharge the
77
powers and duties of
his office .
NOTE: The President can reassume power and

duties of his office once he transmits to the Senate
President and to the Speaker of the HoR his
written declaration that no inability exists.
constitutionality of a law, treaty, ordinance, presidential
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT issuance, and other governmental acts.
JUDICIAL POWER NOTE: When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional

boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over other
The duty of the courts of justice to settle actual departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of
controversies involving rights, which are legally the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred
demandable and enforceable and to determine obligation
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government. [1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1(2)]
Body vested with judicial power
It is vested in one Supreme Court and such

lower courts as may be established by law.
(1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1)
Judicial inquiry
The power of the court to inquire into the

exercise of discretionary powers to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Q: Paragraph 2 of Sec. 14 of the Ombudsman

Act (R.A. 6770) provides: “No court shall hear
any appeal or application for remedy against
the decision or findings of the Ombudsman,
except the Supreme Court, on pure question of
law.” Decide on the constitutionality of this
provision.
A: Since the Par. 2 of Sec. 14 of R.A. 6770 limits

the remedy against “decision or findings” of the
Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal and thus –
similar to the Par. 4 of Sec. 27 of RA 6770 –
attempts to effectively increase the Supreme
Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its advice
and concurrence, therefore, the former provision
is also unconstitutional and invalid. (Carpio-
Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015)
JUDICIAL REVIEW
The power of the SC to determine the
79
assigned to it by the Constitution to controversy. The Court cannot speculate on the
determine conflicting claims of constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a bill
authority under the Constitution that Congress may or may not pass. It cannot rule
and to establish for the parties in an on mere speculations or issues that are not ripe
actual controversy the rights which for judicial determination. Filing of bills is within
that instrument secures and the legislative power of Congress and is "not
guarantees to them. This is in truth subject to judicial restraint" (In the Matter of Save
all that is involved in what is the Supreme Court v. Abolition of JDF, UDK-15143,
termed as ‘Judicial Supremacy’, Jan. 21, 2015)
which properly is the power of
judicial review under the 2. Proper party– One who has sustained or is
Constitution. (Angara v. The in immediate danger of sustaining an injury
Electoral Commission, G.R. No. L- as a result of the act complained of. (People
45081, July 15, 1936) v. Vera, G.R. No. 45685November 16, 1937)
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
1. Actual case or Controversy–

It involves a conflict of legal
rights, assertion of opposite
legal claims susceptible of
legal resolution. It must be
both ripe for resolution and
susceptible of judicial
determination, and that which
is not conjectural or
anticipatory, or that which
seeks to resolve hypothetical
or feigned constitutional
problems.
NOTE: But even with the presence

of an actual case or controversy, the
Court may refuse judicial review
unless a party who possesses locus
standior "a right of appearance in a
court of justice on a given question”
to brings the constitutional
question or the assailed illegal
movement or act before it.
Q: Angelo Raphael petitions the

SC to nullify House Bill No. 4738
which abolishes the Judicial
Development Fund (JDF) and
replaces it with the Judiciary
Support Fund (JSF). The funds
from JSF shall be remitted to the
national treasury and Congress
shall determine how the funds
will be used; unlike the JDF, the
spending of which is exclusively
determined by the SC. Rolly
argues that House Bill No. 4738
infringes SC’s fiscal autonomy. Is
the petition meritorious?
A: NO. There is no actual case or

JUDICIAl DePARTMent
To have standing, one must show that: XPN: If the question is of transcendental
importance.
1. He has suffered some actual or
threatened injury as a result of the NOTE: Principle of Transcendental Importance
allegedly illegal conduct of the is determined by: (CDO)
government;
2. The injury is fairly traceable to the 1. The Character of the funds or other assets
challenged action; and involved in the case;
3. The injury is likely to be redressed 2. The presence of a clear case of Disregard of
by a favorable action. (Francisco, Jr. a constitutional or statutory prohibition by
& Hizon v. Toll Regulatory Board, G.R. the public respondent agency or
Nos. 166910, October 19, 2010) instrumentality of the government;
3. The lack of any Other party with a more
Locus Standi vs. Real party-in-interest direct and specific interest in raising the
questions being raised. (Francisco, et al., v.
REAL PARTY-IN- House of Representatives. Ibid.)
LOCUS STANDI
INTEREST
Character of the plaintiff Rule on standing is a matter of procedure,
One who has The party who stands hence, can be relaxed
sustained or is in to be benefited or
imminent danger of injured by the When the proceeding involves the assertion of a
sustaining an injury judgment in the suit, or public right, the mere fact that the petitioner is a
as a result of the act the party entitled to the citizen satisfies the requirement of personal
complained of avails of the suit. interest. Thus, the privatization of power plants
(Direct injury in a manner that ensures the reliability and
test). (Ex parte affordability of electricity in our country is an
Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, issue of paramount public interest in which the
1937) Court held that petitioner possesses the requisite
Legal nature legal standing to file the case. (Osmeña v. Power
Has constitutional A concept of civil Sector Assets and Liabilities Management
underpinnings. procedure. Corporation, G.R. No. 212686, September 28, 2015)
As to the issue involved
Whether such Whether he is "the When the issue concerns a public right, it is
parties have party who would be sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen and has
"alleged such a benefited or injured by an interest in the execution of the laws. (The Prov.
personal stake in the judgment, or the of North Cotabato v. Gov’t of the Rep. of the Phil.
the outcome of the 'party entitled to the Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 183591,
controversy as to avails of the suit”. October 14, 2008)
assure that (Francisco, et al., v.
concrete House of Locus Standi in cases involving Taxes
adverseness which Representatives, G.R.
sharpens the No. 160261, Nov. 10, A taxpayer need not be a party to the contract to
presentation of 2003) challenge its validity. If taxes are involved, people
issues upon which have a right to question contracts entered into by
the court so largely the government. Further, the issues raised in the
depends for petition do not refer to the wisdom but to the
illumination of legality of the acts complained of. Thus, we find
difficult the instant controversy within the ambit of
constitutional judicial review. Besides, even if the issues were
questions." political in nature, it would still come within our
powers of review under the expanded jurisdiction
Legal personality conferred upon us by Section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution, which includes the authority to
GR: If there is no actual or potential injury, determine whether grave abuse of discretion
complainant has no legal personality to raise amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction has
constitutional questions. been committed by any branch or instrumentality
POLITICAL LAW
of the government. with violation. (West Tower
(Mamba v. Lara, G.R. v. First Philippine, G.R. No. a an has
No. 165109, December 194239, June 16, 2015) n no
14, 2009) d, jurisdict
3. Earliest opportunity– if ion to
Locus Standi in Constitutional question n entertai
Environmental Cases must be raised at the o n questions
earliest possible t regardin
In our jurisdiction, opportunity. c g
locus standi in o constitu
environmental cases GR: It must be raised in n tionality
has been given a more the pleadings. si of laws.
liberalized approach. d Thus,
Recently, the Court XPN: e when
passed the landmark 1. Criminal case – It r the issue
Rules of Procedure may be brought at e of
for Environmental any stage of the d constitu
Cases, which allow for proceedings in tionality
a “citizen suit,” and according to the tr of a law
permit any Filipino discretion of the ia was
citizen, as steward of judge (trial or l, raised
nature, to file an appeal) because no it before
action before our one shall be c the
courts for violations of brought within the a Court of
our environmental terms of the law n Appeals,
laws. Thus, the need to who are not clearly n which is
give the Resident within them and the o the
Marine Mammals legal act shall not be t compete
standing has been punished when the b nt court,
eliminated by our law does not clearly e the
Rules and it is worth punish them. c constitu
noting here that the 2. Civil case – It may o tional
Stewards are joined as be brought anytime n question
real parties in the if the resolution of si was
Petition and not just the constitutional d raised at
in representation of issue is inevitable in e the
the named cetacean resolving the main r earliest
species. (Resident issue. e opportu
Marine Mammals v. d ne time.
Reyes, G.R. No. 180771, 3. When the jurisdiction of o (Estarija
April 21, 2015) the lower court is in n v.
question except when a Ranada,
The filing of a petition there is estoppel. (Tijam p G.R. No.
for the issuance of a v. Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. p 159314,
writ of kalikasan does L-21450, April 15, 1968) e June 26,
not require that a NOTE: The earliest al 2006)
petitioner be directly opportunity to raise a .
affected by an constitutional issue is to 4. Necessit
environmental raise it in the pleadings T y of
disaster. The rule before a competent h decidin
clearly allows juridical court that can resolve e g
persons to file the the same, such that, if O constitu
petition on behalf of not raised in the m tional
persons whose pleadings, it cannot be b questio
constitutional right to considered in trial u ns – As
a balanced and d long as
healthful ecology is s there
violated or threatened m are
JUDICIAl DePARTMent
oth ue "unless other Challenges
er the bodies
ba constituti of the When a law is
ses onal govern passed, the
wh question ment, court awaits
ich is the lis under an actual case
co mota of the that clearly
urt the case." doctri raises
s ne of adversarial
ca Lis mota checks positions in
n means and their proper
us "the cause balanc context
e of the suit es. before
for or action." considering a
de Given the The prayer to
cisi presumed lower declare it as
on, validity of courts unconstitutio
co an are nal. (Sameer
nst executive likewis Overseas
itu act, the e v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139,
tio petitioner vested August 5, 2014)
nal who with
ity claims the However, in a
of otherwise power case where
the has the of the law
la burden of judicia passed
w showing l incorporates
wil first that review the exact
l the case , clause
not cannot be subject already
be resolved howev declared as
tou unless the er to unconstitutio
ch constituti the nal, without
ed, onal appell any perceived
thu question ate substantial
jurisdi
s, he raised change in the
ction
co is circumstance
of the
urt determine s, the Court
higher
s d by the ruled that
courts.
sh Court. there is a
oul (General necessity to
Constitutional
d v. Urro, decide the
ref G.R. No.
rai 191560, constitutional reincorporatio
n March 29, issue involved. n or
fro 2011) (Sameer reenactment of
m Overseas v. the same or a
res Scope of Judicial Review Cabiles, ibid.) similar law or
olv provision. A
ing The courts Thus, when a law or
an have the power law or a provision of
y to pass upon provision of law law that was
co the validity and is null because it already
nst the is inconsistent declared
itu constitutionalit with the unconstitution
tio y of laws Constitution, the al remains as
nal enacted by the nullity cannot be such unless
iss legislature, and cured by circumstances
POLITICAL LAW
have so changed reversed or controlling
as to warrant a overruled by a principles Power of judicial
reverse court of and concepts review in
conclusion. competent on matters of impeachment
(Sameer Overseas authority. (De grave public proceedings
v. Cabiles, ibid.) Castro v. JBC, importance includes the
(2014 Bar) G.R. No. 191002, for the power of review
April 20, 2010) guidance of, over justiciable
The and restraint issues in
constitutionality NOTE: The upon the impeachment
of an official act Court, as the future. proceedings.
may be the highest court of (Dumlao v. (Francisco v. HoR,
subject of judicial the land, may be COMELEC, G.R. No. 160261,
review, provided guided but is G.R. No. L- November 10,
the matter is not not controlled 52245, 2003)
raised collaterally. by precedent. January 22,
(Laude v. Hon. Thus, the Court, 1980) Judicial review
Ginez, G.R. No. especially with a of the SC on
217456, new findings of facts
November 24, membership, is of
2015) not obliged to administrative
follow blindly a tribunals and
Requisites decision that it trial courts
before a law can determines,
be declared after re- GR: The SC will
partially examination, to not disturb the
unconstitutional call for a findings of facts of
rectification. (De administrative
1. The Castro v. JBC, tribunals and the
legislature ibid.) trial courts.
must be
willing to Functions of XPN: The SC may
retain valid judicial review review findings of
portion facts of the lower
(separabilit 1. Checking – courts under the
y clause); Invalidating a following
and law or exceptions: (SM-
2. The valid executive act GF-CBA-TW-NE)
portion can that is found
stand to be 1. When the
independent contrary to conclusion is
ly as law. the a finding
Constitution. grounded
Principle of 2. Legitimizing entirely on
Stare Decisis – Upholding Speculation,
the validity surmises
Deemed of of the law and
imperative that results conjectures;
authority, from a mere 2. When the
controlling the dismissal of a inference made
decisions of like case is manifestly
challenging Mistaken,
cases in the same
the validity absurd or
court and in lower
of the law. impossible;
courts within the
3. Symbolic – To 3. Where there is
same jurisdiction,
educate the a Grave abuse
unless and until
bench and of discretion;
the decision in
bar as to the 4. When the
question is
judgment is
JUDICIAl DePARTMent
based on a POLITICAL
misapprehensio QUESTION DOCTRINE
n of Facts;
5. When the findings Those questions
of fact are which, under the
Conflicting; Constitution, are to
6. When the Court be decided by the
of Appeals, in people in their
making its sovereign capacity,
findings, went or in regard to
Beyond the which full
issues of the discretionary
case and the authority has been
same is delegated to the
contrary to the legislative or
Admissions of executive branch of
both appellant the government.
and appellee; (Tañada v. Cuenco,
7. When the G.R. No. L-10520,
findings are February 28, 1957)
contrary to
those of the Political Question
Trial court; Doctrine
8. When the
findings of fact The doctrine that
are Without the power of
citation of judicial review
specific cannot be exercised
evidence on when the issue is a
which the political
conclusions are
based;
9. When the facts
set forth in the
petition as well
as in the
petitioner’s
main and reply
briefs are Not
disputed by the
respondents;
and
10. When the
findings of fact
of the Court of
Appeals are
premised on the
supposed
absence of
Evidence and
contradicted by
the evidence on
record. (David v.
Misamis
Occidental II,
G.R. No. 194785,
July 11, 2012)
question. It constitutes another limitation on such delimitation as to whether or not there has been a
power of the judiciary. (Tañada v. Cuenco, ibid.) grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official
Justiciable questions vs. Political questions whose action is being questioned.
BASIS JUSTICIABLE POLITICAL MOOT QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS QUESTIONS
Imply a Questions Questions on which a judgment cannot have any
given right which involve practical legal effect or, in the nature of things,
legally the policy or the cannot be enforced. (Baldo, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R.
demandable wisdom of the No. 176135, June 16, 2009)
and law or act, or
enforceable, the morality or Moot and academic
an act or efficacy of the
omission same. Generally It is moot and academic when it ceases to present
violative of it cannot be a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening
such right, inquired by the events so that a declaration thereon would be of
and a courts. Further, no practical use or value.
remedy these are
granted and questions which Court actions over moot and academic cases
sanctioned under the
by law for Constitution: GR: The courts should decline jurisdiction over
said breach a. are decided such cases or dismiss it on ground of mootness.
Definition
of right. by the
people in
their XPNs: (GPFR)
sovereign 1. There is a Grave violation of the Constitution.
capacity; and 2. There is an exceptional character of the
b. where full situation and the Paramount public interest
discretionary is involved.
authority has 3. When the constitutional issue raised
been requires Formulation of controlling
delegated by principles to guide the bench, the bar, and
the the public.
Constitution 4. The case is capable of Repetition yet
either to the evading review. (David v. Macapagal-Arroyo,
executive or G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006; Republic v.
legislative Principalia Management, G.R. No. 198426,
department. September 2, 2015)
Effect of the expanded definition of judicial NOTE: Judicial power presupposes actual
power on the political question doctrine controversies, the very antithesis of mootness. In
(1995, 1997, 2004 Bar) the absence of actual justiciable controversies or
disputes, the Court generally opts to refrain from
The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of deciding moot issues. Where there is no more live
judicial review. Under the expanded definition, subject of controversy, the Court ceases to have a
the Court cannot agree that the issue involved is a reason to render any ruling or make any
political question beyond the jurisdiction of the pronouncement. (Suplico v. NEDA, G.R. No.
court to review. When the grant of power is 178830, July 14, 2008)
qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the
issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or Q: PSBank filed a Petition for Certiorari and
conditions have been met or the limitations Prohibition seeking to nullify the order of the
respected is justiciable—the problem being one Senate, sitting as an Impeachment Court, to
of legality or validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, issue a subpoena duces tecum and ad
the jurisdiction to delimit constitutional testificandum to PSBank and/or its
boundaries has been given to the SC. When representative requiring them to testify and
political questions are involved, the Constitution produce documents relative to the foreign
limits the
currency upon the may be left agencies has to be
accounts merits of undisturbed as a complied with
that were this case matter of equity because it has the
alleged to where and fair play. It is a force and effect of
belong to legal relief rule of equity. law. The term
then SC is no (League of Cities v. “executive act” is
Chief longer COMELEC, G.R. No. broad enough to
Justice needed no 176951, November encompass
Renato called for. 18, 2008) decisions of
Corona. The administrative
Pending superveni In another case, the bodies and
the ng Court held that to agencies under
resolution conviction return the amounts the executive
for such of CJ received to the department
petition, Corona respective taxing which are
supervenin has authorities would
g events rendered certainly impose a
have taken the heavy, and possibly
place such present crippling, financial
as the petition burden upon them
conviction moot and who merely, and
of CJ academic. presumably in good
Corona as (Philippin faith, complied with
well as his e Savings the legislative fiat
execution Bank v. subject of this case;
of a waiver Senate hence the doctrine
against Impeahc of operative fact
confidentia ment shall be applied.
lity of all Court, G. (Film Development
his bank R. No. Council v. Colon
accounts. 200238, Heritage Realty,
Did the November G.R. No. 203754,
Impeachme 12, 2012, June 16, 2015)
nt Court act PER J.
arbitrarily PERLAS- NOTE: The
when it BERNABE invocation of this
issued the ) doctrine is an
assailed admission that the
subpoena law is
to obtain unconstitutional.
informatio OPERATIV Further, as an
n E FACT exception to the
concerning DOCTRINE general rule, the
the subject doctrine only
foreign Under this applies as a matter
current doctrine, of equity and fair
deposits the law is play.
notwithsta recognized
nding the as Applicability on
confidentia unconstitu executive acts
lity of such tional but
deposits? the effects The Operative Fact
of the Doctrine also
A: The Court unconstitu applies to executive
finds it tional law, acts subsequently
appropriate prior to its declared as invalid.
to abstain declaratio A decision made by
from n of the president or the
passing nullity, administrative
85
subsequently adjudication, appellate
revoked by the is open to jurisdiction (1987
agency in inquiry and Constitution, Art
question of investigation VIII, Sec. 2);
nullified by the in the light of appellate
Court. changed jurisdiction may
(Hacienda conditions. not be increased
Luisita v. (Central without its advice
Presidential Bank or concurrence.
Agrarian Employees (1987
Reform Council, Association, Constitution, Art.
G.R. No. 171101, Inc. v. Bangko VI, Sec. 30)
November 22, Sentral ng
2011) Pilipinas, NOTE: The
G.R. No. 148208, Congress shall
Doctrine of December 15, have the power to
Relative 2004) define, prescribe,
Constitutionality and apportion the
SAFEGUARDS OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
A statute valid Constitutiona jurisdiction of the
at one time may l safeguards various courts (all
become void at that courts below the
another time guarantee SC) but may not
because of the deprive the
altered independenc Supreme Court of
circumstances. e of the its jurisdiction
The judiciary over cases
constitutionalit enumerated in
y of a statute 1. The SC is Section 5 (express
cannot, in every a powers of the SC)
instance, be constituti hereof. (1987
determined by a onal Constitution, Art.
mere body and VII, Sec. 2)
comparison of may not
its provisions be 4. The SC has
with applicable abolishe administrative
provisions of d by the
supervision over
the legislatur
all inferior courts
Constitution, e.
and personnel.
since the statute 2. Members
(1987
may be are only
Constitution, Art.
constitutionally removab
VIII, Sec. 6)
valid as applied le by
5. The SC has
to one set of impeach
exclusive power
facts and invalid ment.
to discipline
in its (1987
judges/justices of
application to Constitut
inferior courts.
another. ion, Art.
(1987
XI, Sec.
Constitution, Art.
Thus, if a 2)
VIII, Sec. 11)
statute in its 3. The SC
practical may not
operation be
becomes deprived
arbitrary or of its
confiscatory, its minimu
validity, even m
though affirmed original
by a former and

Justice determining probable cause for the
6. The members of the judiciary enjoy security
of tenure. [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 2
(2)]
7. The members of the judiciary may not be
designated to any agency performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec 12)
8. The salaries of judges may not be reduced;
the judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 3)
9. The SC alone may initiate the promulgation
of the Rules of Court. [1987 Constitution, Art.
VIII, Sec. 5 (5)]
10. The SC alone may order temporary detail of
judges. [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5
(3)]
11. The SC can appoint all officials and
employees of the Judiciary. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (6)]
Judicial Privilege (Deliberative Process

Privilege or DPP)
The privilege against disclosure of information or

communications that formed the process of
judicial decisions.
This applies to confidential matters, which refer

to information not yet publicized by the Court like
(1) raffle of cases, (2) actions taken in each case
in the Court’s agenda, and (3) deliberations of the
Members in court sessions on case matters
pending before it.
This privilege, however, is not exclusive to the

Judiciary and it extends to the other branches of
government due to our adherence to the principle
of separation of powers. (In Re: Production of
Court Records and Documents and the Attendance
of Court Officials and Employees as Witnesses
under the Subpoenas of Feb. 10, 2012 and the
Various Letters of Impeachment Prosecution Panel
dated January 19 and 25, 2012, February 14, 2012)
Purpose of Judicial Privilege
To prevent the ‘chilling’ of deliberative

communications. It insulates the Judiciary from
an improper intrusion into the functions of the
judicial branch and shields judges, justices, and
court officials and employees from public scrutiny
or the pressure of public opinion that would
impair their ability to render impartial decisions.
(Ibid.)
Q: Does the participation of Associate Justices

in the hearings of the House Committee on

the Chief Justice or other Members of the Court
impeachment of an impeachable about information acquired in the performance of
officer make them disqualified to their official adjudicatory functions and duties;
hear a petition for quo warranto otherwise, their disclosure of confidential matters
against said officer? learned in their official capacity violates judicial
privilege as it pertains to the exercise of the
A: NO. Their appearance thereat is constitutional mandate of adjudication. (Ibid.)
in deference to the House of
Representatives whose XPN: If the intent only is for them to identify or
constitutional duty to investigate certify the genuineness of documents within their
the impeachment complaint filed control that are not confidential and privileged,
against an impeachable officer their presence in the Impeachment Court may be
could not be doubted. The same is permitted.
not a ground for inhibition
provided that their appearance is Waiver of provisions of a
with the prior consent of the privilege statute, courts
Supreme Court En Banc and they must first
faithfully observe the parameters This privilege, ascertain
that the Court set for the purpose. incidentally, whether an
belongs to the interpretation is
Requisites for a document to be Judiciary and is for possible to
protected by DPP the SC (as the sidestep the
representative and question of
It must be shown that the document is both: entity speaking for constitutionality.
1. Pre-decisional – If they were the Judiciary), and (Estrada v.
made in the attempt to reach a not for the Sandiganbayan,
final decision; and individual justice, G.R. No. 148560,
2. Deliberative – If it reflects the judge, or court November 19,
give-and-take of the official or 2001)
consultative process such as employees to
the disclosure of the waive. Thus, every
information would discourage proposed waiver
open discussion within the must be referred to JUDICIAL AND
agency. the SC for its BAR COUNCIL
Composition of the JBC (C2RISP2) consideration and
approval.
NOTE: Court records which are 1. Chief Justice,
pre-decisional and deliberative in Principle of as ex-officio
nature are thus protected and Judicial Restraint chairman
cannot be the subject of subpoena if 2. Secretary of
judicial privilege is to be preserved. Theory of judicial Justice, as an
(Ibid.) interpretation that ex-officio
encourages judges member
NOTE: In a case where the House to limit the exercise 3. Representati
Impeachment Panel, through of their own power. ve of
letters, asked for the examination of Congress, as
records and the issuance of In terms of an ex-officio
certified true copies of the rollos legislative acts, it member
and the Agenda and Minutes of means that every 4. Representati
Deliberations of specific SC-decided intendment of the ve of the
cases and at the same time, law must be Integrated
requested for the attendance of adjudged by the Bar
court officials including judges, courts in favor of 5. A Professor
justices, and employees as its constitutionality, of law
witnesses under subpoenas, it was invalidity being a 6. A Retired
held that Members of the Court may measure of last member of
not be compelled to testify in the resort. Therefore, the SC
impeachment proceedings against in construing the 7. Private
87
sector A. Regula
represe r B. Other Members powers causing a
ntative Memb 4. Representati vivid dichotomy that
ers ve of the the Court cannot
NOTE: JBC 1. Chie Integrated simply discount. This,
does not fall f Bar – 4 years however, cannot be
within the Justi 5. A professor of said in the case of JBC
scope of a ce – law – 3 years representation
tribunal, 4 6. A retired because no liaison
board, or year member of the SC between the two
officer s – 2 years houses exists in the
exercising 2. Secr 7. Private sector workings of the JBC.
judicial or etar representative – Hence, the term
quasi- y of 1 year. “Congress” must be
judicial Justi [1987 taken to mean the
functions. ce – Constitution, Art. entire legislative
However, 4 VIII, Sec. 8(2)] department. The
since the year Constitution
formulation s Rationale: continuity mandates that the
of 3. Repr and preservation of the JBC be composed of
guidelines esen institutional memory seven (7) members
and criteria tativ only. (Chavez v. JBC,
is necessary e of Representative of G.R. No. 202242, July
and Cong Congress in the JBC 17, 2012)
incidental to ress
the exercise –4 Only one. The word
of the JBC’s year “Congress” used in Sec.
constitution s 8(1), Art. VIII is used in POWERS OF JBC
al mandate, its generic sense. Only
a a singular Functions of the JBC
determinati representative may be (2000 Bar)
on must be allowed to sit in the JBC
made on from either the Senate The principal
whether the or HoR. The seven- function of the JBC is
JBC has member composition to recommend
acted with of the JBC serves a appointees to the
grave abuse practical purpose, that judiciary. It may,
of discretion is, to provide a solution however, exercise
amounting should there be a such functions as the
to lack or stalemate in voting. SC may assign to it.
excess of (1987 Constitution,
jurisdiction It is evident that the Art. VIII, Sec. 8)
in issuing definition of “Congress”
and as a bicameral body NOTE: The duty of
enforcing refers to its primary the JBC to submit a
the said function in government list of nominees
policy. – to legislate. In the before the start of
(Villanueva passage of laws, the the President’s
v. JBC, G.R. Constitution is explicit mandatory 90-day
No. 211833, in the distinction of the period to appoint is
April 7, role of each house in ministerial, but its
2015) the process. The same selection of the
holds true in Congress’ candidates whose
Staggered non-legislative powers. names will be in the
Terms of An inter- play between list to be submitted
members of the two houses is to the President lies
the JBC necessary in the within the discretion
realization of these of the JBC. (De Castro

v. JBC, G.R. No.
191002, March
17, 2010)
Unanimity rule
on integrity
89
Under Sec. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009, an applicant must
QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE
obtain the unanimous vote of the JBC members in
JUDICIARY
order to be included in the shortlist of nominees
to be submitted to the President whenever a Of proven competence, integrity, probity and
question of integrity is raised against him. independence. [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec.
7(3)]
FISCAL AUTONOMY
Composition of the SC
Constitutional guarantee of fiscal autonomy
A. Chief Justice
In Bengzon v. Drilon (G.R. No. 103524, April 15, B. 14 Associate Justices
1992), the SC explained that fiscal autonomy
contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to Divisions of the SC
allocate and utilize resources with the wisdom
and dispatch that the needs require. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions
of three, five, or seven members. [1987
It recognizes the power and authority to deny, Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1)]
assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation
not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law Qualifications for appointments to the SC
for compensation and pay plans of the
government and allocate and disburse such sums 1. Natural born citizen of the Philippines;
as may be provided by law or prescribed by it in 2. At least 40 years of age; and
the course of the discharge of its functions. 3. A judge of a lower court or engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines for 15 years
Q: The Court received two letters requesting or more. [1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec.
for copies of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, 7(1)]
and Net worth (SALN) and the Personal Data
Sheet (PDS) or the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of its The members of the judiciary are appointed by
justices for the year 2008 for the purposes of the President of the Philippines from among a list
updating their database of information on of at least three (3) nominees prepared by the
government officials. Other requests for Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for every vacancy.
copies of SALN and other personal documents
of the Justices of the Court, Court of Appeals NOTE: The appointment shall need no
(CA), and Sandiganbayan (SB) were filed. Can confirmation from the Commission on
the Court allow the release of copies of SALN Appointments. (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 9)
and other personal documents of the
incumbent Justices? Rules on vacancies in the SC
A: The Court may deny request for certified 1. Vacancies in the SC should be filled within
copies of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy.
Worth (SALNs) of all incumbent justices of the SC (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 4(1))
and Court of Tax Appeals if it is lacking sufficient 2. Vacancies in lower courts should be filled
basis. It should not be forgotten that invoking within 90 days from submission to the
one’s constitutional right to information must not President of the JBC list.
set aside the need to preserve the integrity and 3. The filling of the vacancy in the Supreme
independence of the judiciary. It must be invoked Court within the 90-day period is an
if under the circumstances it would not result in exception to the prohibition on midnight
endangering, diminishing or destroying the appointments of the president. This means
independence and security of the members of the that even if the period falls on the period
judiciary in the performance of their judicial where the president is prohibited from
functions or expose them to revenge for adverse making appointments (midnight
decisions. (RE: Request for Copies of the SALN and appointments); the president is allowed to
Personal Data Sheet or Curriculum Vitae of the make appointments to fill vacancies in the
Justices of the Supreme Court and Officers and Supreme Court.
Employees of the Judiciary, A.M. No. 09-8-6-SC,
June 13, 2012) Otherwise stated, the prohibition of the
President to make appointments two (2)
months prior the immediate presidential difference in their origin and nature, quo
election is limited to appointments to the warranto and impeachment may proceed
lower courts. (De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. independently of
191002, March 17, 2010)
Tenure of the members of the SC and judges

(1993, 1996, 2000 Bar)
Members of the SC and judges of lower courts can

hold office during good behavior until:
1. The age of 70 years old; or

2. They become incapacitated to discharge
their duties.
Q: May the Supreme Court assume jurisdiction

and give due course to a petition for quo
warranto against an impeachable officer and
against whom an impeachment complaint has
already been filed with the House of
Representatives?
A: YES. The language of Section 2, Article XI of

the Constitution does not foreclose a quo
warranto action against impeachable officers. The
provision reads:
The xxx Members of the Supreme Court, xxx may

be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, culpable violation of the
Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of
public trust. Xxx
The provision uses the permissive term "may"

which, in statutory construction, denotes
discretion and cannot be construed as having a
mandatory effect. The term "may" is indicative of
a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option.
The grantee of that opportunity is vested with a
right or faculty which he has the option to
exercise. An option to remove by impeachment
admits of an alternative mode of effecting the
removal. Therefore, by its tenor, Section 2, Article
XI of the Constitution allows the institution of a
quo warranto action against an impeachable
officer.
While both impeachment and quo warranto may

result in the ouster of the public official, the two
proceedings materially differ. Thus, they are not
mutually exclusive remedies and may proceed
simultaneously. At its most basic, impeachment
proceedings are political in nature, while an
action for quo warranto is judicial or a proceeding
traditionally lodged in the courts. Aside from the
each other as these remedies are distinct as to Petitioners assert that President Aquino's
jurisdiction, grounds, applicable rules pertaining to power to appoint is limited to each shortlist
initiation, filing and dismissal, and limitations. submitted by the JBC, President Aquino
(Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018) should have appointed the 16th
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice from the
General qualifications for appointments to nominees in the shortlist for the 16th
LOWER COLLEGIATE courts Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, the 17th
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice from the
1. Natural born citizen of the Philippines; and nominees in the shortlist for the 17th
2. Member of the Philippine Bar. Sandiganbayan Associate Justice, and so on
and so forth. By totally overlooking the
General qualifications for appointments to nominees for the 16th Sandiganbayan
LOWER courts Associate Justice and appointing respondents
Musngi and Econg, who were both nominees
1. Citizen of the Philippines; and for the 21st Sandiganbayan Associate Justice,
2. Member of the Philippine Bar. as the 16th and 18th Sandiganbayan Associate
Justices, respectively, President Aquino
NOTE: For both lower collegiate courts and lower violated the Art. VIII, Sect. 9 of the 1987
courts, Congress may prescribe other qualifications. Constitution, which requires the President to
[1987 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 7 appoint from a list of at least three nominees
(1) and (2)] submitted by the JBC for every vacancy. Are
the petitioners correct?
Q: By virtue of Republic Act No. 10660, two new
divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created A: NO. Nomination by the JBC shall be a
with three members each, and there were six qualification for appointment to the Judiciary, but
simultaneous vacancies for Associate Justice of this only means that the President cannot appoint
said collegiate court. The JBC then submitted six an individual who is not nominated by the JBC. It
separate shortlists for the vacancies for the 16th should be stressed that the power to recommend
to the 21st Sandiganbayan Associate Justices.
of the JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the him, and thereafter, the JBC released the short list of four
President's power to appoint as the latter's nominees, which did not include Jardeleza. Jardeleza
prerogative to choose someone whom he/she resorted to judicial intervention, alleging the illegality of
considers worth appointing to the vacancy in the his exclusion from the short list due to the deprivation of
Judiciary is still paramount. As long as in the end, his constitutional right to due process.
the President appoints someone nominated by
the JBC, the appointment is valid. This does not a.
Is the right to due process available in JBC
violate Article VIII, Section 9 of the 1987 proceedings?
Constitution. To meet the minimum requirement b. Was Jardeleza denied his right to due process?
under said constitutional provision of three A:
nominees per vacancy, there should at least be 18 a. YES. An applicant’s access to the rights afforded under the
nominees from the JBC for the six vacancies for due process clause is not discretionary on the part of the
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice; but the JBC. While the facets of criminal and administrative due
minimum requirement was even exceeded herein process are not strictly applicable to JBC proceedings, their
because the JBC submitted for the President's peculiarity is insufficient to justify the conclusion that due
consideration a total of 37 qualified nominees. process is not demandable. The fact that a proceeding is sui
(Aguinaldo v. Aquino, G.R. No. 224302, November generis and is impressed with discretion does not
29, 2016) automatically denigrate an applicant’s entitlement to due
process. Notwithstanding being “a class of its own,” the
Q: Upon the retirement of Associate Justice right to be heard and to explain one’s self is availing. The
Roberto Abad, the Judicial and Bar Council Court subscribed to the view that in cases where an
(JBC) announced the opening for application objection to an applicant’s qualifications is raised, the
or recommendation for the position. Francis
H. Jardeleza (Jardeleza) was nominated for
the said position and upon acceptance of the
nomination, he was included in the names of
candidates. However, Chief Justice Sereno
invoked Sect. 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 against
observance of due process more conspicuous to JBC members.
neither negates nor renders (Jardeleza V. Sereno, et al., G.R. No. 213181,
illusory the fulfillment of the 19 August 2014)
duty of JBC to recommend.
This holding is not an
encroachment on its EN BANC DECISIONS
discretion in the nomination
process. Actually, its Cases that should be heard by the SC en banc
adherence to the precepts of (TRuP-DE-PreJ)
due process supports and
enriches the exercise of its 1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a
discretion. Treaty, international or executive
agreement, or law;
b. YES. Even as Jardeleza was 2. All cases which under the Rules of Court
verbally informed of the may be required to be heard en banc;
invocation of Section 2, Rule 3. All cases involving the constitutionality,
10 of JBC- 009 against him and application or operation of Presidential
was later asked to explain decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions,
himself during the meeting, ordinances, and other regulations;
these circumstances still 4. Cases heard by a Division when the required
cannot expunge an immense majority in the division is not obtained;
perplexity that lingers in the 5. Cases where the SC modifies or reverses a
mind of the Court. What is to doctrine or principle of law Previously laid
become of the procedure laid either en banc or in division;
down in JBC-010 if the same 6. Administrative cases involving the discipline
would be treated with or dismissal of Judges of lower courts;
indifference and disregard? To 7. Election contests for president or vice-
repeat, as its wording president.
provides, any complaint or
opposition against a candidate Cases that may be heard by division
may be filed with the
Secretary within ten (10) days Other cases or matters may be heard in division,
from the publication of the and decided or resolved with the concurrence of a
notice and a list of candidates. majority of the members who actually took part
Surely, this notice is all the in
the deliberations on the issues and voted thereon, courts

but in no case without the concurrence of at least 3. Admission to the practice of law
three such members. 4. The Integrated Bar
5. Legal assistance to the underprivileged
WORKINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT
Advice and concurrence of SC needed for
increase of its appellate jurisidiction Limitations on its rule making power
No law shall be passed increasing the appellate 1. It should provide a simplified and
jurisdiction of the SC as provided in the inexpensive procedure for the speedy
Constitution without its advice and concurrence. disposition of cases.
(1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 30) 2. It should be uniform for all courts of the
same grade.
PROCEDURAL RULE-MAKING POWER 3. It should not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights.
Scope of the rule-making power of the SC.
(1991, 2000, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015 Requirements for the decisions of the SC
Bar)
1. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in
1. The protection and enforcement of any case submitted to it for decision en
constitutional rights banc or in division shall be reached in
2. Pleadings, practice and procedure in all consultation before the case is assigned
to a Member for the writing of the opinion of
the Court. When change of venue is permitted
2. A certification to this effect signed by the
Chief Justice shall be issued. Where there are serious and weighty reasons
3. A copy thereof shall be attached to the present, which would prevent the court of
record of the case and served upon the original jurisdiction from conducting a fair and
parties. impartial trial, the Court has been mandated by
4. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, Sec. 5(4), Art. VIII to order a change of venue to
or abstained from a decision or resolution, prevent a miscarriage of justice.
must state the reason thereof. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 13) In this case, that fact that the respondent filed
several criminal cases for falsification in different
NOTE: No decision shall be rendered by any court jurisdictions, which unduly forced Navaja to
without expressing therein clearly and distinctly spend scarce resources to defend herself cannot
the facts and the law on which it is based. (1987 be considered as compelling reason which would
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 13) prevent the MCTC from conducting a fair and
impartial trial. (Navaja v. de Castro, G.R. No.
182926, June 22, 2015)
The authority vested in the Congress and

Supreme Court is separate and distinct
CONGRESS SUPREME COURT

Authority to define, Power to promulgate
prescribe, and rules of pleading,
apportion the practice, and
jurisdiction of the procedure. [1987
various courts. (1987 Constitution, Art. VIII,
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)]
Sec. 2)
Authority to create
statutory courts. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII,
Sec. 1)
NOTE: Albeit operatively interrelated, these

powers are institutionally separate and distinct,
each to be preserved under its own sphere of
authority.
When Congress creates a court and delimits its

jurisdiction, it is the Court which fixes the
procedure through the rules it promulgates.
It was held that the 1 st par. of Sec. 14, RA 6770 is

not a jurisdiction-vesting provision because it
does not define, prescribe, and apportion the
subject matter jurisdiction of courts to act on
certiorari cases, instead, Congress interfered with
a provisional remedy created by this Court under
its duly promulgated rules of procedure, which
utility is both integral and inherent to every
court’s exercise of judicial power. Without the
Court’s consent to the proscription, as may be
manifested by an adoption of the same as part of
the rules of procedure through an administrative
circular issued therefor, there thus, stands to be a
violation of the separation of powers principle.
(Carpio-Morales v. CA, G.R. No. 217126-27,
November 10, 2015)
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER

COURTS
The Supreme Court exercises administrative

supervision over all lower courts. (1987
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 6)
The SC is assisted by the Court Administrator and

the Deputy Court Administrators in exercising the
administrative function.
Matters to be attended by the Court En Banc:
1. Disciplinary Matters involving justices and

judges of all lower courts and lower court
personnel.
2. Designation of Judges.
3. Request for transfer of cases from one court,
administrative area or judicial region to another
and/or transfer of venue of cases to avoid
miscarriage of justice as provided for in Section
5(4), Article VIII of the Constitution.
4. Amendment, modification and/or revocation
of Administrative Orders and Circulars issued
by the Supreme Court.
5. Matters for policy determination.
ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Original and appellate jurisdiction of the SC

(1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2006 Bar)
The Supreme Court has the power to review,

revise, reverse, or affirm on appeal or certiorari,
as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final
judgments and orders of lower courts in:
1. All cases in which the constitutionality or

validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
2. All cases involving the legality of any tax,
impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
3. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any
lower court is in issue.
4. All criminal cases in which the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
5. All cases in which only an error or question
of law is involved. [1987 Constitution, Art
VIII, Sec. 5(2)]

CoNSTITUTIonAl CoMMISSIOns
extended to the appointee without

violating the Constitution. (Matibag v.
COMMON PROVISIONS Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002)
Independent Constitutional Commissions:
1. Civil Service Commission (CSC)

2. Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
3. Commission on Audit (CoA)
NOTE: The CSC, COMELEC, and COA are equally

pre-eminent in their respective spheres. Neither
one may claim dominance over the others. In case
of conflicting rulings, it is the judiciary, which
interprets the meaning of the law and ascertains
which view shall prevail. (CSC v. Pobre, G.R. No.
160508, September 15, 2004)
Purpose
The Constitution established the Constitutional

Commissions for the importance of their
functions and the need of insulation from
undesired political interference or pressure; if
merely created by statute, their independence is
not assured.
Guarantees of independence provided for by

the Constitution to the 3 Commissions
1. They are constitutionally-created; may not

be abolished by statute of its judicial
functions. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec.
1)
2. Each is conferred certain powers and
functions which cannot be reduced by
statute. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, C and
D)
3. Each is expressly described as independent.
(1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 1)
4. Chairmen and members are given long
terms of office for seven (7) years. [1987
Constitution, Art. IX-B, C and D, Sec. 1(2)]
5. Chairmen and members cannot be removed
except by impeachment. (1987 Constitution,
Art. XI, Sec. 2)
6. Chairmen and members may not be
reappointed or appointed in an acting
capacity. [1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, C and
D, Sec. 1(2)]
NOTE: When an ad interim appointment is

not confirmed (as it was by-passed or that
there was no ample time for Commission on
Appointments to pass upon the same),
another ad interim appointment may be
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
POLITICAL LAW
Salaries of chairmen and members are relatively
high and may not be decreased during
continuance in office. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-
A, Sec. 3; Art. XVIII, Sec. 17)
7. Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy. (1987
Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 5)
8. Each commission may promulgate its own
procedural rules, provided they do not diminish,
increase or modify substantive rights [though
subject to disapproval by the Supreme Court].
(1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 7)
9. Chairmen and members are subject to certain
disqualifications and inhibitions calculated to
strengthen their integrity. (1987 Constitution,
Art. IX-A, Sec. 2)
10. Commissions may appoint their own officials
and employees in accordance with Civil Service
Law. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX-A, Sec. 4)
NOTE: The Supreme Court held that the “no report,

no release” policy may not be validly enforced against
offices vested with fiscal autonomy, without violating
Art. IX-A, Sec. 5. The “automatic release” of approved
annual appropriations to a Constitutional
Commission vested with fiscal autonomy should thus
be construed to mean that no condition to fund
releases may be imposed. (CSC v. DBM, G.R. No.
158791, July 22, 2005)
Salary
Salaries may be increased by a statute but may not be

decreased during incumbent’s term of office.
NOTE: The decrease is prohibited to prevent the

legislature from exerting pressure upon the
Commissions by “operating on their necessities.”
Salaries may be increased, as a realistic recognition of
the need that may arise to adjust the compensation to
any increase in the cost of living.
TERM
Seven years without reappointment.
NOTE: Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for

the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no case
shall any Member be appointed or designated in a
temporary or acting capacity. (1987 Constitution, Art.
IX-C, Sec. 1[2]) (1997, 2005 Bar)
Requisites for the effective operation of the 2. As collegial bodies, each Commission must
rotational scheme of terms of constitutional act as one, and no one member can decide a
bodies case for the entire commission.
1. The original members of the Commission 3. Any decision, order or ruling of each
shall begin their terms on a common date; Commission may be brought to the SC on
2. Any vacancy occurring before the expiration certiorari by the aggrieved party within
of the term shall be filled only for the thirty
balance of such term. (Republic v. Imperial, (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
G.R. No. L- 8684, March 31, 1995)
NOTE: When the Court reviews a decision of the
NOTE: The members of the Constitutional COMELEC, it exercises extraordinary jurisdiction
Commissions have staggered terms: thus, the proceeding is limited to issues involving
grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or
a) To minimize the opportunity of the excess of jurisdiction and not factual findings of
President to appoint during his own the Commission. (Aratuc v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
term more than one member or group 49705-09, February 8, 1979)
of members in the Constitutional
Commissions; and The appropriate remedy to invalidate disputed
COMELEC resolutions (i.e. final orders, rulings
b) To ensure continuity of the body and its and decisions of the COMELEC rendered in the
policies. exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
powers) is certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CSC, of Court. (Loong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 93986,
COMELEC AND COA December 22, 1992)
Decision-making held that a majority

process in these decision decided by a
Commissions division of the
COMELEC is a valid
1. The CSC, COMELEC, decision.
and CoA shall
decide matter or NOTE: Pursuant to COMELEC
cases by a majority Rules of Procedure, when the
vote of all the COMELEC en banc is equally
members within divided in an opinion and
sixty (60) days cannot have the required
from submission. majority, rehearing shall be
(Sec. 7 Art. IX-A) done. If rehearing is originally
commenced in the Commission
a. COMELEC and no majority decision is
may sit en reached, rehearing shall be
banc or in 2 dismissed. In appealed cases,
divisions. the judgment or order appealed
b. Election cases, from shall stand affirmed and
including pre- the petition or motion on all
proclamation incidental matters shall be
controversies denied. (Mamerto Sevilla v.
are decided in COMELEC, G.R. No. 202833,
division, with March 19, 2013)
motions for
reconsideratio
n filed with
the COMELEC
en banc.
c. The SC has

COMPOSITION AND QUALIFICATIONS OF
pointme 3. College degree
MEMBERS of the
nt does holder; and winning
CIVIL not 4. Not a candidates.
SERVICE violate candidate in
COMMISSION the any election 2. Exercise:
prohibiti immediately a. Exclusive
(See discussion on on preceding the original
under Law on reappoin appointment. jurisdicti
Public tments on over
Officers) because NOTE: Majority of all
no the members, contests
previous including the relating
appoint Chairman, shall be to the
ment members of the election,
COMMISSION ON
was Philippine Bar who returns
ELECTIONS and
confirme have been engaged
d by the in the practice of qualificat
Composition of ions of all
the COMELEC Commiss law for at least ten
ion on years. [1987 elective:
Appoint Constitution, Art. i. Regio
A. Chairman nal
B. Six (6) ments. IX-C, Sec 1(1)]
The total ii. Provi
Commission ncial
ers term of Constitutional
both powers and iii. City
appoint functions of the offici
TERM: als
ments COMELEC (1991,
Seven years must not 1996, 2001 Bar)
exceed b. Exclusive
without appellate
reappointment. the 7- 1. Enforce and
year administer all jurisdicti
limit. laws and on over
NO all
TE: (Matibag regulations
v. relative to the contests
If involving
the Benipayo conduct of an
, G.R. No. election, :
ap i. Electi
poi 149036, plebiscite,
April 2, initiative, ve
nt muni
me 2002) referendum,
and recall. cipal
nt offici
wa Qualifications
Note: als
s decid
ad 1. Natural-born COMELEC may
citizen; order the ed by
int trial
eri 2. At correction of
leas manifest errors court
m, s of
a t 35 in the
yea tabulation or gene
su ral
bse rs tallying results
old during the juris
qu dictio
ent at canvassing and
the petitions for n.
ren ii. Electi
ew tim this purpose
e of may be filed ve
al bara
of app directly with
oint the ngay
the offici
ap me Commission
nt; even after the als
proclamation decid
95
e rc in
d is connec NOTE: The
e tion COMELEC
b th with may issue
y is its writs of
p purely certiorari,
c o executi prohibition,
o w ve or and
u er minist mandamus
r o erial in exercise of
t nl functio its appellate
s y ns. functions.
in ii. If it is a
re pre- 3. Decide, except
o
la procla those involving
f
ti mation the right to vote,
o contro all questions
l
n versy, affecting
i
to the elections,
m
it COMEL including
i
s EC determination of
t
a exercis the number and
e
dj es location of
d
u quasi- polling places,
di judicial appointment of
j election officials
c /
u and inspectors,
at
r and registration
o admini
i of voters.
ry strativ
s
o e
d NOTE: Questions
r power
i involving the
q s.
c right to vote fall
u iii. Its
t within the
as jurisdi
i jurisdiction of
i- ction
o ordinary courts.
ju over
n
di contest
. 4. Deputize, with
ci s (after
al procla the concurrence
c. Con of the President,
fu mation
tem law enforcement
n ), is in
pt agencies and
ct exercis
pow e of its instrumentalities
io
ers judicial of the
n
i. C functio government,
s.
O ns. including the
It
M AFP, for the
c
E exclusive
a
L purpose of
n
E ensuring free,
n
C orderly, honest,
ot
e peaceful and
c x credible
a er elections.
n ci 5. Registration of
se political parties,
e th organizations, or
x is coalitions and
e

accreditati by Sec. 43 nuisance disregard of, or
on of of RA candidacies. disobedience to
citizens’ 9369. 8. Recommend to the its directive,
arms of the Thus, the President the order, or
COMELEC. DOJ now removal of any decision.
6. File, upon a conducts officer or 9. Submit to the
verified prelimina employee it has President and
complaint, ry deputized, or the the Congress a
or on its investigati imposition of any comprehensive
own on of other disciplinary report on the
initiative, election action, for conduct of each
petitions in offenses violation or
court for concurren
inclusion tly with election, plebiscite,
or the initiative, COMELEC can exercise its
exclusion COMELEC referendum, or power of contempt in
of voters; and no recall. connection with its functions
investigate longer as as the National Board of
and, where mere Remedy of a Canvassers during the
appropriat deputies. dissatisfied party in elections
e, (Jose election cases decided
prosecute Miguel T. by the COMELEC in The effectiveness of a
cases of Arroyo v. division government institution vested
violations DOJ, et with quasi-judicial power
of election al., The dissatisfied party hinges on its authority to
laws, G.R. No. may file a motion for compel attendance of the
including 199082, reconsideration before parties and/or their witnesses
acts or September the COMELEC en banc. in hearings and proceedings.
omissions 18, 2012) If the en banc’s decision Suchlike, the COMLEC’s
constitutin is still not favorable, the investigative power to punish
g election 7. Recomme same, in accordance individuals who refuse to
frauds, nd to the with Sec. 7, Art. IX-A, appear during a fact-finding
offenses Congress “may be brought to the investigation, despite a
and effective SC on certiorari within previous notice and order to
malpractice measures 30 days from receipt of attend, cannot be withheld, for
s. to copy thereof.” (Reyes v. it is an essential to its
minimize RTCof Oriental Mindoro, constitutional mandate to
NOTE: The election G.R. No. 108886, May 5, secure the conduct of honest
grant of spending, 1995) and credible elections. (Bedol v.
exclusive including COMELEC, G.R. No. 179830,
power to limitation NOTE: The fact that December 3, 2009)
investigate of places decisions, final orders
and where or rulings of the Function of Senate Electoral
prosecute propagan COMELEC in contests Tribunal (SET)
cases of da involving elective
election materials municipal and The SET has jurisdiction to
offenses to shall be barangay offices are entertain and resolve two types
the posted, final, executory and not of electoral contests against a
COMELEC and to appealable, (1987 Member of the Senate: a)
was not by prevent Constitution, Art. IX-C, petition for quo warranto, and
virtue of and Sec. 2[2]) does not b) election protest. Mutually
the penalize preclude recourse to exclusive, a petition for quo
Constitutio all forms the SC by way of a warranto cannot include an
n but by of election special civil action of election protest, nor can an
the OEC frauds, certiorari. (Galido v. election protest include a
which was offenses, COMELEC, G.R. No. petition for quo warranto.
eventually malpracti 95346, January 18,
amended ces, and 1991) Any registered voter who seeks
97
to disqualify a (30) days t 35 years
Member of the during from old at the
Senate on the the prosteste time of
ground of responde e’s appointmen
ineligibility or nt’s proclama t;
disloyalty to the tenure; if tion. 3. Certified
Republic of the the Public
Philippines must ground is Under Accountant
file a petition for loss of the 2013 with not
quo warranto the Rules of less than
within ten required the ten years of
(10) days from qualificat Tribunal, auditing
therespondent’s ions, the joint experience,
proclamation. petition election or member
However, if the may be protests of the
basis of filed at are not Philippine
ineligibility is on any time allowed, Bar who
citizenship, the during but for has been
petition may be the good and engaged in
filed any time responde sufficient the practice
nt’s reasons, of law; and
tenure, the 4. Not a
as soon Tribunal candidate
as the may in any
required order the election
qualificat consolida immediatel
ion is tion of y preceding
lost. The individua the
petitione l appointme
r may not protests, nt.
be a hear, and
candidat decide NOTE: At no
e, unlike them time shall all
in an jointly. Members of the
election Commission
protest, belong to the
which is same profession.
filed only COMMISSION ON [1987
by a AUDIT Constitution, Art.
candidat IX-D, Sec 1(1)]
e who Composition of the
duly filed COA Powers and duties of COA
a
certificat A. Chairman 1. Examine,
e of B. Two (2) audit and
candidac Commissioners settle all
y and accounts
had been TERM pertaining
voted for to revenue
the office Seven years without and
of reappointment receipts of,
Senator. and
In an Qualifications expenditure
election s or uses of
protest, 1. Natural-born funds and
the filing citizen; property
period is 2. At owned or
thirty leas held in

tr and and regulations 4. Be
us sup and the power to financially
t port disallow interested,
or ing unnecessary directly or
pe pap expenditures is indirectly, in
rt ers. exclusive but its any contract
ai 3. Aut power to with, or in
ni hori examine and any
ng ty audit is not franchise or
to to exclusive. privilege
go defi (Development granted by
ve ne Bank of the the
rn the Philippines v. Government
m sco Commission on , any of its
en pe Audit, G.R. No. subdivisions
t. of 88435, January , agencies or
2. K its 16, 2002) instrumenta
ee audi lities,
p t 4. Promulgate including
ge and accounting GOCCs or
ne exa and auditing their
ra min rules and subsidiaries.
l atio regulations, (1998,
ac n, including 2015 Bar)
co esta those for
u blis prevention Purpose
nt h and
s tech disallowance. 1. To compel
of niq (1987 the
go ues Constitution, chairmen
ve and Art. IX-D, Sec. and
rn met 2) members of
m hod the
en s PROHIBITED Constitution
t req OFFICES & al
an uire INTERESTS Commission
d d s to devote
pr ther No member of a their full
es ein. Constitutional attention to
er Commission shall, the
ve during his tenure: discharge of
vo their duties;
uc 1. Hold any other and
he office or 2. To remove
rs employment from them
2. Engage in the any
NOTE: scope of practice of any temptation
The its audit profession to take
power of and to 3. Engage in the advantage
REVIEW OF FINAL ORDERS, RESOLUTIONS & active of their
DECISIONS management official
and control of positions for
RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE OF any business selfish
QUASIJUDICIAL FUNCTION which in any purposes.
the promulg way may be
Commissi ate affected by
on to auditing the function of
his office SC’s
define the rules
99
i under Rule 45 of 65.
jurisdiction or excess the Rules of Court. 2. Decisions,
over of 3. COMELEC: Only orders or
jurisdicti decisions of rulings of the
decisions on, may COMELEC en banc CSC should be
the the SC may be brought to appealed to the
Commissio entertain the Court by CA under Rule
ns a petition certiorari since 43.
for Art. IX-C provides
1. COA: certiorar that motions for
Judgm i under reconsideration of Power of the CSC to
ents or Rule 65. decisions shall be hear and decide
final 2. CSC: In decided by the administrative
orders the case Commission en cases
of the of banc. (Reyes v.
Commi decisions Mindoro, G.R. No. Under the
ssion of the 108886, May 5, Administrative Code
on CSC, 1995) of 1987, the CSC has
Audit Administ the power to hear
may be rative Procedural requisite and decide
brough Circular before certiorari to administrative cases
t by an 1-95538 the Supreme Court instituted before it
aggriev which may be availed of directly or on appeal,
ed took including contested
party effect on Sec. 1 of Rule 65 appointments.
to the June 1, provides that certiorari
Supre 1995, may be resorted to Body which has the
me provides when there is no other jurisdiction on
Court that final plain or speedy and personnel actions,
on resolutio adequate remedy. But covered by the civil
certior ns of the reconsideration is a service
ari CSC shall speedy and adequate
under be remedy. Hence, a case CSC. It is the intent of
Rule appealab may be brought to the the Civil Service Law,
65. le by Supreme Court only in requiring the
Only certiorar after reconsideration. establishment of a
when i to the grievance procedure,
COA CA Rule on appeals that decisions of
acts within 15 lower officials (in
withou days 1. Decisions, orders cases involving
t or in from or rulings of the personnel actions) be
excess receipt of COMELEC/COA appealed to the
of a copy may be brought agency head, then to
jurisdi thereof. on certiorari to the CSC. The RTC
ction, From the the SC under Rule does not
or with decision
grave of the CA, have jurisdiction over
abuse the party personnel actions. Proceedings are limited to
of adversel (Olanda issues involving grave abuse of
discret y v. Bugayong, G.R. No. discretion resulting in lack or
ion affected 140917, October 10, excess of jurisdiction and do
amoun thereby 2003) not ordinarily empower the
ting to shall file RENDERED IN THE EXERCISE OF
lack a petition ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION
for Court to review the factual
review Certiorari jurisdiction findings of the Commissions.
on of the SC over these (Aratuc v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-
certiorar Commissions 49705-09, February 8, 1979)

Officer 1 after taking
Decisions the required rewards to it. Further,
rendered in examinations system, Section 28, Rule
proceedings or including the Career and to XIV of the
actions Service Professional adopt Omnibus Civil
recognized by the Examination- measures Service Rules
Commissions in Computer Assisted to and Regulations
the exercise of Test (CSP-CAT) given promote specifically
adjudicatory and by the Civil Service, morale, confers upon the
quasi-judicial However, it was efficiency CSC the authority
power are found out that the and to take
limited but not to person in the picture integrity cognizance over
purely executive pasted in the Picture in the any irregularities
powers. Hence, Seat Plan as well as civil or anomalies
questions based the signature therein service. connected with
from award of a when he took the Section the
contract for exam is different 12 of examinations.
construction of from the person Administr Hence, CSC acted
voting booths can whose picture and ative within its
be brought signature is attached Code of jurisdiction.
before the trial in the Personal Data 1987 (Capablanca v.
court. (Ambil v. Sheet. CSC conducted enumerat Civil Service
Comelec, G.R. No. preliminary es the Commission, G.R.
143398, October investigation. powers No. 179370,
5, 2000) Capablanca’s counsel and November 19,
functions 2009)
JURISDICTION OF EACH CONSTITUTIONAL of the
COMMISSION CSC. Sec. COMMISSION ON
moved to dismiss 11 ELECTION
CIVIL arguing that the thereof
SERVICE administrative states Cases that fall
COMMISSION discipline over police that CSC under the
officers falls under has the jurisdiction of
Scope of the Civil the jurisdiction of the power to COMELEC by
Service (1999, PNP and/or hear and DIVISION
2003 Bar) NAPOLCOM. Does CSC decide
have jurisdiction and administr Election cases
The civil service disciplinary authority ative should be heard
embraces all over a member of the cases and decided by a
branches, PNP? instituted division. If a
subdivisions, by or division
instrumentalities, A: YES. The CSC, as the brought dismisses a case
and agencies of central personnel before it for failure of
the Government, agency of the directly counsel to
including Government, is or on appear, the MR
government- mandated to establish appeal, may be heard by
owned or a career service, to including the division.
controlled strengthen the merit contested
corporations and appointm NOTE: According
with original ents, and to Balajonda v.
charters. [1987 review COMELEC (G.R.
Constitution, Art. decisions No. 166032, Feb.
IX-B, Sec. 2(1)] and 28, 2005), the
actions of COMELEC can
Q: Capablanca, its offices order immediate
acquired a and of the execution of its
permanent agencies own judgments.
status as Police attached
10
1
Cas over a division regulate
es petition thereof.
tha to correct 1. The
t manifest Acts that enjoyment
fall errors in fall or
un the under utilization
der tallying the of all
the of results COMELE franchises
juri by Board C’s or
sdi of power to permits for
cti Canvasse supervis the
on rs. e or operation of
of
CO NOTE: transportatio only to
ME Any n and other elections
LEC decision, public but also to
EN order or utilities, plebiscites
BA ruling of media of and
NC the communicatio referenda.
COMELE n or
Mot C in the information. Jurisdiction of
ion exercise 2. Grants, special the COMELEC
for of its privileges or before the
Rec quasi- concessions proclamation
ons judicial granted by the vs. its
ide functions government jurisdiction
rati may be or any after
on brought subdivision, proclamation
of to the SC agency or
dec on instrumentalit OVER PRE-
isio certiorari y thereof, PROCLAMATION
ns under including any CONTROVERSY
ma Rules 64 GOCC or its Due process im
y and 65 of subsidiary. COMELEC’s
be the (1987 jurisdiction is
dec Revised Constitution, administrative or
ide Rules of Art. IX-C, Sec. quasi-judicial and is
d Court 4) governed by the less
by within 30 stringent requirements
CO days Instances when of administrative due
ME from COMELEC can process (although the
LEC receipt of exercise its SC has insisted that
En a copy constitutional questions on
Ba thereof. powers and “qualifications” should
nc. functions be decided only after a
It These full-blown hearing).
ma decisions 1. During
y or rulings election NOTE: Hence,
als refer to period – 90 even in the case
o the days before of regional or
dir decision the day of the provincial or city
ectl or final election and offices, it does
y order of 30 days make a difference
ass the thereafter. In whether the
um COMELE special cases, COMELEC will
e C en banc COMELEC can treat it as a pre-
juri and not fix a period. proclamation
sdic of any 2. Applies not controversy or as
tion

a contest. Cultural Office (MECO) handles government
agencies. funds in the form of
(Development MECO is a sui generis the "verification fees"
Bank of the private entity and not a it collects on behalf of
COMMISSIO Philippines v. GOCC or government the DOLE and the
N ON AUDIT COA, G.R. No. instrumentality. the "consular fees" it
88435, January Government entrusted collects under
16, 2002) with the facilitation of Section 2(6) of EO
The COA unofficial relations No. 15, s. 2001.
Audit with the people in Hence, accounts of
cannot be
jurisdiction of Taiwan without the MECO pertaining
divested of
the COA on jeopardizing the to its collection of
its power
privatized, country’s faithful such "verification
to examine
formerly commitment to the One fees" and "consular
and audit
government- China policy of the fees" should be
governmen
owned banks PROC. However, audited by the COA.
t agencies.
No law shall despite its non- (Funa v. MECO and
Since the PNB governmental COA, G.R. No. 193462,
be passed
is no longer character, the MECO February 4, 2014)
exempting
owned by the instruments through which
any entity of
Government, BILL OF RIGHTS
the State, as parens patriae,
the
the COA no gives effect to a host of its
Government
longer has FUNDAMENTAL regulatory powers. We have
or its
jurisdiction to POWERS OF THE held that the power to
subsidiary
audit it as an STATE “regulate” means the power to
in any guise,
institution. protect, foster, promote,
or any
Under Sec. The following are the preserve, and control, with
investment
2(2), Art. IX-D fundamental/inherent due regard for the interests,
of public
of the powers of the state: first and foremost, of the
funds, from
Constitution, it public, then of the utility of its
the
is a GOCC and 1. Police Power patrons. (Gerochi v.
jurisdiction
their 2. Power of Department of Energy, G. R.
of the
subsidiaries Eminent 159796, July 17, 2007)
Commission
which are Domain
on Audit.
subject to 3. Power of The state, in order to promote
(Sec.3, ART.
audit by the Taxation general welfare, may interfere
IX-D)
COA. However, with personal liberty, with
The mere in accordance POLICE property, and with business
fact that with Sec. 2(1), POWER and occupations. Persons may
private Art. IX-D, the be subjected to all kinds of
auditors COA can audit Police power is the restraint and burdens in order
may audit the PNB with power of the state to to secure the general comfort,
government respect to its promote public welfare health and prosperity of the
agencies accounts by restraining and state and to this fundamental
does not because the regulating the use of aim of our Government, the
divest the Government liberty and property. It rights of the individual are
COA of its still has equity is the most pervasive, subordinated. (Ortigas and Co.,
power to in it. the least limitable, and Limited Partnership v. Feati
examine (Philippine the most demanding of Bank and Trust Co, December
and audit Airlines v. COA, the three fundamental 14, 1979)
the same G.R. No. 91890, powers of the State.
government June 9, 1995) Generally, police power
As an inherent extends to all the great public
Extent of COA’s attribute of sovereignty needs. Its particular aspects,
audit which virtually extends however, are the following:
jurisdiction to all public needs,
over Manila police power grants a 1. Public health;
Economic and wide panoply of 2. Public morals;
10
3
3. Public of rans
safety; and 2. L t Bank,
4. Public a h 192
welfare. w e SCRA
f p 257,
Requisites for a u u Decembe
valid exercise of l r r 10,
police power m p 1990)
1. Lawful e o
subject – a s Q: President
The n e Rodrigo Duterte
interests s a issued
of the – n Proclamation
public T d No. 475
generall h n formally
y, as e ot declaring a
distingui m u state of calamity
shed e n in Boracay and
from a d ordering its
those of n ul closure for six
a s y (6) months. On
particula e o account of this,
r class, m p Boracay
require p p residents Mark
the l r Anthony Zabal
exercise o e and Thiting
of the y ss Jacosalem filed
police e iv the present
power; d e petition alleging
and a u that they would
r p suffer grave and
e o irreparable
r n damage as their
e in livelihood
a di depends on the
s vi tourist activities
o d therein. They
n u attacked the
a al order on the
b s. ground that it is
l ( an invalid
y necessary N exercise of
f T legislative
o C powers. Is the
r the v. order invalid?
a P
c h A: NO. That the
c il assailed
o i governmental
m p measure in this
p p case is within the
li i scope of police
s n power cannot be
h e disputed. Verily,
m V the statutes from
e e which the said
n t measure draws
t e authority and the

con legitimat likewise and permanent
stit e afforded in character as
utio objective the they were
nal s of governme intended to serve
pro governm nt the as long- term
visi ental necessary solutions to the
ons efforts leeway in problem. (Zabal
whi and its v. Duterte,
ch regulatio rehabilita G.R. No. 238467, February 12,
ser ns. The tion 2019)
ve only program.
as question Note that
its now is apart Q: Hotel and
fra whether from motel operators
me the review, in Manila
wor temporar evaluatio sought to
k y closure n and declare
are of amendme Ordinance 4670
pri Boracay nt of as
mar as a relevant unconstitutiona
ily tourist policies, l for being
con destinati the bulk unreasonable,
cer on for six of the thus violative of
ned months rehabilita the
wit reasonabl tion
h y activities
the necessary involved
env under the inspection
iron circumsta , testing,
me nces? The demolitio
nt answer is n,
and in the relocation
heal affirmativ , and
th, e. constructi
safe on. These
ty, Tourist works
and arrivals could not
well in the have
- island easily
bei were been done
ng clearly with
of far more tourists
the than present.
peo Boracay The
ple, could rehabilita
the handle. tion
pro Certainly, works in
mot the the first
ion closure of place
and Boracay, were not
sec albeit simple,
urin temporar superficia
g of ily, gave l or mere
whi the island cosmetic
ch its much but rather
are needed quite
clea breather, complicat
rly and ed, major,
10
5
POLITICAL LAW
police power?
due process clause. The Ordinance requires
the clients of hotels, motels and lodging house
to fill out a prescribed form in a lobby, open to
public view and in the presence of the owner,
manager or duly authorized representative of
such hotel, motel or lodging house. The same
law provides that the premises and facilities
of such hotels, motels and lodging houses
would be open for inspection either by the
City Mayor, or the Chief of Police, or their duly
authorized representatives. It increased their
annual license fees as well. Is the ordinance
constitutional?
A: YES. The mantle of protection associated with

the due process guaranty does not cover the hotel
and motel operators. This particular
manifestation of a police power measure being
specifically aimed to safeguard public morals is
immune from such imputation of nullity resting
purely on conjecture and unsupported by
anything of substance. To hold otherwise would
be to unduly restrict and narrow the scope of
police power which has been properly
characterized as the most essential, insistent
and the least limitable of powers,
extending as it does "to all the great public
needs." There is no question that the challenged
ordinance was precisely enacted to minimize
certain practices hurtful to public morals. The
challenged ordinance then proposes to check the
clandestine harboring of transients and guests of
these establishments by requiring these
transients and guests to fill up a registration form,
prepared for the purpose, in a lobby open to
public view at all times, and by introducing
several other amendatory provisions calculated
to shatter the privacy that characterizes the
registration of transients and guests. Moreover,
the increase in the licensed fees was intended to
discourage "establishments of the kind from
operating for purpose other than legal" and at the
same time, to increase "the income of the city
government." (Ermita-Malate Hotel v. City Mayor
of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693, July 31, 1967)
Q: The City of Manila enacted Ordinance No.

7774 entitled, “An Ordinance Prohibiting
Short-Time Admission, Short-Time Admission
Rates, and Wash-Up Rate Schemes in Hotels,
Motels, Inns, Lodging Houses, Pension Houses,
and Similar Establishments in the City of
Manila.” The purpose of the ordinance is to
prohibit motel and inn operators from
offering short-time admission, as well as pro-
rated or “wash-up” rates for abbreviated
stays. Is the ordinance a valid exercise of
BIll of RIGHTs
exclusive discretion, Tagle, December 2, 1998)
A: NO. A reasonable relation must exist between the as long as the
purposes of the measure and the means employed requisites for a valid The power of the nation or
for its accomplishment, for even under the guise of exercise of police the sovereign state to take,
protecting the public interest, personal rights and power have been or to authorize the taking
those pertaining to private property will not be complied with. of private property for
permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. It must also be public use without the
evident that no other alternative for the Q: Can MMDA owner’s consent,
accomplishment of the purpose less intrusive of exercise police conditioned upon payment
private rights can work. In the present case, there is power? of just compensation.
less intrusive measures which can be employed such (Brgy. Sindalan, San
as curbing out the prostitution and drug use through A: NO. The MMDA Fernando, Pampanga v. CA,
active police force. The ordinance has a lawful cannot exercise G.R. No. 150640, March 22,
purpose but does not have the lawful means hence, police powers since 2007)
unconstitutional. (White Light Corporation vs. City of its powers are
Manila, G.R. No. 122846, January 20, 2009) limited to the Conditions for the
formulation, exercise of the Power of
Q: Are the rates to be charged by utilities like coordination, Eminent Domain (TUCO)
MERALCO subject to State regulation? regulation,
implementation, 1. Taking of private
A: YES. The regulation of rates to be charged by preparation, property;
public utilities is founded upon the police powers of management, 2. For public Use;
the State and statutes prescribing rules for the monitoring, setting 3. Just Compensation;
control and regulation of public utilities are a valid of policies, installing and
exercise thereof. When private property is used for a a system, and 4. Observance of due
public purpose and is affected with public interest, it administration. process.
ceases to be juris privati only and becomes subject to Nothing in RA No.
regulation. The regulation is to promote the common 7924 granted the NOTE: There must be a
good. As long as use of the property is continued, the MMDA police power, valid offer to buy the
same is subject to public regulation. (Republic v. let alone legislative property and refusal of
Manila Electric Company, power (MMDA v. said offer.
G.R. No. 141314, November 15, 2002) Trackworks, G.R. No.
Power of Power of 179554, December Power of expropriation as
NOTE: Mall owners and operators
expropriation cannot be validly
expropriation 16, 2009) exercised by Congress vs.
compelled asto exercised
provide free parking to their customers
as exercised Power of expropriation as
because requiring
by Congressthem tobyprovide free parking
delegates exercised by delegates
space to their customers is beyond the scope of
police powers. It unreasonably restricts the right to EMINENT DOMAIN
use property for business purposes and amounts to
confiscation of property. (OSG v. Ayala Land, Inc., 600 Power of eminent
SCRA 617, September 18, domain
2009) (2014 Bar)
The power of
Requisites for the valid exercise of police power eminent domain is
by the delegate the inherent right of
the State to
1. Express grant by law; condemn private
2. Must not be contrary to law; and property to public
3. GR: Within territorial limits of LGUs. use upon payment of
XPN: When exercised to protect water supply. just compensation.
(Wilson v. City of Mountain Lake Terraces, 417
P.2d 632,August 18, 1966) It is well settled that
eminent domain is
The courts cannot interfere with the exercise of an inherent power of
police power the State that need
not be granted even
If the legislature choice of measures or
by the fundamental
decides to act, the remedies lies within its
law. (Republic v.
POLITICAL LAW
r must enj v. De
enter a oy Caste
The power is private me llvi,
pervasive proper nt G.R.
all- ty; of No.
encompassing; 2. Entry the L-
It can reach must pr 2062
every form of be for op 0,
property which more ert Augu
may be needed than a y. st 15,
by the State for mome (R 1974
public use. In ntary ep )
fact, it can reach period; ubl
even private 3. Entry ic Nature of property taken
Scope
property must
already be GR: All private n of
dedicated under property duty.
public use, or warran capable of
even property t or ownership, NOTE:
already color including A
devoted to of legal services, can be chose
religious authori taken. in
worship. ty; action
(Barlin 4. Proper XPNs: is a
v. Ramirez, ty must a. Money; prope
7 Phil. be and rty
41, November devote b. Choses right
24, 1906). d to in in
Question Political public action - somet
of question use or persona hing
necessity otherw l right intang
ise not ible,
inform reduced or
ally in which
approp possessi is not
riated on but in
or recover one’s
injurio able by posses
usly a suit at sion
affecte law but
Requisites for a valid d; and such as enforc
taking 5. Utilizat right to eable
ion of receive, throug
1. T proper demand h legal
h ty or or
e must recover court
be in debt, action
e such a demand e.g.
x way as or cash, a
p to oust damage right
r the s on a of
o owner cause of action
p and action in tort
r depriv ex or
i e him contrac breac
a of tu or for h of
t benefic a tort or contra
o ial omissio ct, an
BIll of RIGHTs
entitleme expropriate actual
nt to cash d, but said beneficiaries area into a model
refund, offer was determines housing
checks, not public purpose). community, urban
money, accepted. Public use now land reform and
salaries, (Municipalit includes the housing. There is
insurance y of broader notion a vicarious
claims. Paranaque of indirect advantage to the
v. V.M. public society. (Filstream
Requisites Realty Corp., advantage, i.e. International
before an LGU 292 SCRA conversion of a Incorporated v.
can exercise 678, July 20, slum CA, 284 SCRA 716,
Eminent Domain 1998) January 23,
1998)
1. An ordinance Expansive
is enacted by concept of Q: The Republic,
the local “Public Use” through the
legislative Office of the
council Public use does Solicitor-
authorizing not necessarily General,
the local chief mean “use by instituted a
executive, in the public at complaint for
behalf of the large.” Whatever expropriation of
LGU, to may be a piece of land in
exercise the beneficially Taguig, alleging
power of employed for that the National
eminent the general Historical
domain or welfare satisfies Institute
pursue the requirement. declared said
expropriation Moreover, that land as a
proceedings only few people national
over a benefit from the historical
particular expropriation landmark,
private does not because it was
property; diminish its the site of the
2. The power of public-use birth of Felix
eminent character Manalo, the
domain is because the founder of
exercised for notion of public Iglesiani Cristo.
public use, use now The Republic
purpose or includes the filed an action to
welfare, or for broader notion expropriate the
the benefit of of indirect land. Petitioners
the poor and public benefit or argued that the
the landless; advantage. expropriation
3. There is (Manosca v. CA, was not for a
payment of G.R. 166440, public purpose.
just January 29, Is this correct?
compensatio 1996)
n; and A: YES. Public use
4. A valid and Concept of should not be
definite offer Vicarious restricted to the
has been Benefit traditional uses. It
previously has been held that
made to the Abandons the places invested
owner of the traditional with unusual
property concept historical interest
sought to be (number of is a public use for
POLITICAL LAW
which the power of reason of but also to the taker.
eminent domain may It is the full and fair expropriation. (Cruz Consequential damages are
be authorized. The equivalent of the and Cruz, only awarded if as a result
purpose in setting up property taken Constitutional Law, of the expropriation, the
the marker is from the private 2015 Ed.) remaining property of the
essentially to owner (owner’s owner suffers from an
recognize the loss) by the Q: Spouses impairment or decrease in
distinctive expropriator. It is Salvador owns a value. In this case, no
contribution of the usually the fair land where a one- evidence was submitted to
late Felix Manalo to market value storey building is prove any impairment or
the culture of the (FMV) of the erected. The said decrease in value of the
Philippines, rather property and must land is subject to subject property as a result
than to include expropriation of the expropriation. More
commemorate his consequential wherein the DPWH significantly, given that the
founding and damages (damages shall construct the payment of capital gains tax
leadership of the to the other NLEX extension on the transfer· of the
Iglesia ni Cristo. The interest of the exiting McArthur subject property has no
practical reality that owner attributed to Highway. DPWH effect on the increase or
greater benefit may the expropriation) paid the spouses decrease in value of the
be derived by minus amounting to remaining property, it can
members of the consequential P685,000 which hardly be considered as
Iglesia ni Cristo than benefits (increase was the fair market consequential damages that
by most others could in the value of value of the land may be awarded to
well be true but such other interests and building. RTC respondents. (Republic v.
a peculiar advantage attributed to new issued a Writ of Sps. Salvador, G.R. No.
still remains to be use of the former Possession in favor 205428, June 7, 2017)
merely incidental property). of the Republic but
and secondary in decided to pay an
nature. Indeed, that NOTE: To be just, the additional amount
only a few would compensation must corresponding to
actually benefit from be paid on time. the capital gains
the expropriation of (2009 Bar) tax paid by the
property does not spouses. The
necessarily diminish Fair Market Value Republic,
the essence and represented by
character of public The price that may be DPWH contested
use. (Manosca v. CA, agreed upon by parties the decision of the
supra.) who are willing but RTC adding the
are not compelled to capital gains tax as
Just Compensation enter into a consequential
damages on the
contract of sale. (City taking of the property and part of the Spouse
of Manila v. Estrada, the owner would be given Salvador. Is the
G.R. No. 7749, undue incremental decision of the RTC
September 9, 1913) advantages arising from the correct?
use to which the government
Period to determine devotes the property A:NO. Just
just compensation expropriated, just compensation is
compensation is determined defined as the full
GR: Reckoning point is as of the date of the taking. and fair equivalent of
determined at the date (NPC v. CA, G.R. No. 113194, the property sought
of the filing of the March 11, 1996) to be expropriated.
complaint for eminent The measure is not
domain. Consequential Damages the taker’s gain but
the owner’s loss. The
XPN: Where the filing Consist of injuries directly compensation, to be
of the complaint caused on the residue of the just, must be fair not
occurs after the actual private property taken by only to the owner
BIll of RIGHTs
items should be NOTE: rsable by the
disregarded The expropriator.
Consequential altogether as owner Pursuant to
Benefits the basic value is Bangko
of the property entitled Sentral ng
If the should be paid to the Pilipinas
remaind in every case. payme Circular No.
er is as a (Rule 67, nt of 799, series of
result of Section 6, Rules interest 2013, from
the of Court) from July 1, 2013
expropr the onwards and
iation Form of payment time of until full
placed taking payment, an
in a GR: Compensation has to be until interest rate
better paid in money. just of 6% per
location, compe annum should
such as XPN: In cases nsation be used in
fronting involving is computing the
a street CARP, actuall just
where it compensation y paid compensation.
used to may be in to him. (Land Bank of
be an bonds or Taxes the Philippines
interior stocks, for it paid by v. Hababag,
lot, the has been held him G.R. No.
owner as a non- from 172352,
will traditional the September 16,
enjoy exercise of the time of 2015)
consequ power of the
ential eminent taking NOTE: The
benefits domain. It is until right to
which not an ordinary the recover just
should expropriation transfe compensatio
be where only a r of n is
deducte specific title enshrined in
d from property of (which no less than
the relatively can our Bill of
consequ limited area is only be Rights, which
ential sought to be done states in clear
damage taken by the after and
s. (Cruz, State from its actual categorical
Constitu owner for a payme language that
tional specific and nt of private
Law, perhaps local just property
2007 purpose. It is compe shall not be
ed., p. rather a nsation taken for
79) revolutionary ), public use
kind of during without just
NOTE: expropriation. which compensatio
If the (Association of he did n. This
consequ Small not constitutional
ential Landowners in enjoy mandate
benefits the Philippines, any cannot be
exceed Inc. v. Secretary benefic defeated by
the of Agrarian ial use statutory
consequ Reform, G.R. No. of the prescription.
ential 78742, July propert (NPC v. Sps.
damage 14,1989) y, are Bernardo, G.
s, these reimbu R. No.
POLITICAL LAW
189127, (2014 Bar) for the
April 25, expansion and ATO would
2012) Determination improvement abandon the
of the Lahug Lahug Airport,
Role of the Airport. The pursuant to an
Judiciary XPNs: RTC rendered established
1. When there judgment in policy involving
The value of the is deliberate favor of the similar cases.
property must be refusal to Government Because of this
determined either pay just and ordered promise, the
at the time of compensati the latter to landowners did
taking or filing of on; and pay the not pursue
the complaint, 2. Government landowners the their appeal.
whichever comes ’s failure to fair market Thereafter, the
first. (EPZA v. pay value of the lot was
Dulay, G.R. No. compensati land. The transferred and
59603, April 29, on within 5 landowners registered in the
1987) years from received the name of the
the finality payment. Government.
In cases where a of the The projected
property is not judgment in The other improvement
wholly the dissatisfied and expansion
expropriated, the expropriatio landowners plan of the old
consequential n appealed. Lahug Airport,
damages of the proceedings Pending however, was
remaining . This is in appeal, the Air not pursued.
property shall be connection Transportation From the date of
added in the fair with the Office (ATO), the institution of
market value, principle proposed a the
minus the that the compromise expropriation
consequential government settlement proceedings up
benefits, but in no cannot keep whereby the to the present,
case will the the property owners of the the public
consequential and lots affected by purpose of the
benefits exceed dishonor the said
the consequential the expropriation expropriation
damages. (Sec. 6, judgment. proceedings (expansion of
Rule 67, Rules of (Republic v. would either the airport) was
Court) Lim, G.R. No. not appeal or never actually
161656, withdraw their initiated,
Effect of Delay June 29, respective realized, or
2005) appeals in implemented.
GR: Non-payment consideration
by the Abandonment of a Thus, the
government does of intended use commitment landowners
not entitle private and right of that the initiated a
owners to recover repurchase expropriated complaint for
possession of the lots would be the recovery of
property because Q: Several resold at the possession and
expropriation is parcels of lands price they were reconveyance of
an in rem located in expropriated ownership of the
proceeding, not Lahug, Cebu in the event lands based on
an ordinary sale, City were the that the the
but only entitle subject of compromised
them to demand expropriation agreement they
payment of the proceedings entered into
fair market value filed by the with the ATO. Do
of the property. Government the former
BIll of RIGHTs
owners have the latter desires to expenses of the the support of the
right to redeem the reacquire the same. government, and to government and for public
property? Otherwise, the be able to carry out, needs.
judgment of in particular, any
A: YES. It is well expropriation and all projects that NOTE: Payment of taxes is
settled that the suffers an intrinsic are supposed to be an obligation based on law,
taking of private flaw, as it would for the common and not on contract. It is a
property by the lack one good. Simply put, duty imposed upon the
Government’s power indispensable taxation is the individual by the mere fact
of eminent domain is element for the method by which of his membership in the
subject to two proper exercise of these contributions body politic and his
mandatory the power of are exacted. enjoyment of the benefits
requirements: (1) eminent domain, available from such
that it is for a namely, the The power to tax membership. Except only
particular public particular public includes the power in the case of poll
purpose; and (2) that purpose for which to destroy only if it is (community) taxes, non-
just compensation be the property will be used as a valid payment of a tax may be
paid to the property devoted. implement of the the subject of criminal
owner. These Accordingly, the police power in prosecution and
requirements private property discouraging and in punishment. The accused
partake of the nature owner would be effect, ultimately cannot invoke the
of implied conditions denied due process prohibiting certain prohibition against
that should be of law, and the things or enterprises imprisonment for debt, as
complied with to judgment would inimical to public taxes are not considered
enable the condemn violate the property welfare. But where debts.
or to keep the owner’s right to the power to tax is
property justice, fairness, used solely for the Scope of legislative
expropriated. and equity. (MIAA purpose of raising discretion in the exercise
and Air revenues, the of taxation
More particularly, Transportation modern view is that
with respect to the Office v. Lozada, it cannot be allowed 1. Whether to impose
element of public G.R. No. 176625, to confiscate or tax in the first place
use, the expropriator February 25, 2010) destroy. If this is 2. Whom or what to
should commit to use sought to be done, tax;
the property NOTE: To continue the tax may be 3. For what public
pursuant to the with the successfully attacked purpose; and
purpose stated in the expropriation as an inordinate and 4. Amount or rate of
petition for proceedings unconstitutional the tax.
expropriation filed, despite the definite exercise of the
failing which, it cessation of the discretion that is General Limitations on
should file another public purpose of usually vested the power of taxation
petition for the new the project would exclusively in the
purpose. If not, it is result in the legislature in A. Inherent limitations
then incumbent upon rendition of an ascertaining the
the expropriator to invalid judgment in amount of tax.
return the said favor of the (Roxas v. CTA, G.R.
property to its expropriator due to No. L-25043, April
private owner, if the the absence of the 26, 1968)
essential
Taxes
element of public use.
(Republic v. Heirs of TAXATION Enforced
Borbon, G.R. No. proportional
165354, January 12, It is the process by which the contributions from
2015) government, through its persons and
legislative branch, imposes property levied by
and collects revenues to the State by virtue of
defray the necessary its sovereignty for
POLITICAL LAW
1. Public 2. Equal protection Pre chari
purpose; clause (Art. III, Sec.1); sid table
2. Non- 3. Unifor ent and
delegability of mity, to educ
power; equita fix ation
3. Territoriality bility tar al
or situs of and iff purp
taxation; progre rat oses
ssive es, (NIR
4. E
system im C, Sec
x of po 30);
e taxatio
m rt 10. Majo
n (Art. an rity
p VI, Sec d vote
t 28); ex of all
i 4. Non- po the
o impair rt mem
n ment qu bers
of ota of
o contra s, Cong
f cts ton ress
(Art. na requi
g III, Sec.
ge red
o 10);
an in
v 5. Non-
d case
e impris
wh of
onmen
r arf legisl
t for
n age ative
non-
m du grant
payme
e nt of es; of tax
n poll tax 9. Ta exem
t (Art. x ption
III, Sec. exe s;
f 20); mp 11. Non-
r 6. Revenu tio impai
o e and n rmen
m tariff of t of
bills pr SC’s
t must op juris
origina ert dictio
a
te in ies n in
x
the act tax
a cases
House ual
t ;
of ly,
i 12. Tax
Repres dir
o exem
entativ ect
n ption
es (Art ly
; of
IV, Sec. an
a 24); reven
d
n ues
7. Non-infringement of exc
d lus and
religious freedom
5. International (Art. III, Sec.4); ive asset
comity. 8. Delega ly s of,
tion of use inclu
B. Constitutional legislat d ding
limitations ive for grant
1. Due process of authori reli s,
law (Art. III, ty to gio endo
Sec.1); the us, wme
nts,
BIll of RIGHTs
d Art. VI in every place
o of the where the 3. For the same
n 1987 subject of it is taxing
a Constit found. This is Periods;
t ution, known as 4. On the same
i Sec. 28 geographical Subject
o [3]) uniformity. matter;
n 5. Within the
s Notice and hearing in the XPN: The rule same taxing
enactment of tax laws on uniformity Jurisdiction;
o does not and
r From the prohibit 6. Of the
procedural classification for same
c viewpoint, due purposes of Kind or
o process does taxation, character.
n not require provided the (Swedish
t previous notice requisites for Match
r and hearing valid Philippine
i before a law classification are s v.
b prescribing met. (Ormoc Treasurer
u fixed or specific Sugar v. of the City
t taxes on certain Treasurer of of Manila,
i articles may be Ormoc, February G.R. No.
o enacted. But 15, 2013) 181277,
n where the tax July 3,
s to be collected Progressive 2013)
is to be based system of
t on the value of taxation Tax exemptions
o taxable may either be
property, the It posits that the
e taxpayer is tax rate 1. Constitutional;
d entitled to be increases as the or
u notified of the tax base
c assessment increases. NOTE:
a proceedings Requisites
t and to be heard Double for
i therein on the taxation Constitutiona
o correct l exemption:
n valuation to be Actual, Direct
a given the and
l property. Exclusive
i Use by the
n Uniformity in taxation following:
s a. Edu
t cati
It refers to
i onal
geographical
t ;
uniformity,
u
meaning it b. char
t
operates with itabl
i
the same force e
o
and effect in insti
n
every place tuti
s
. where the ons;
( subject of it is and
found. c. R
tax operates e
with the same li
GR: The power to force and effect g
POLITICAL LAW
ious VI, constitute 2. Statutory.
orga 19 Double
niza 87 Taxation when NOTE: It has
tion Co they tax: to be passed
s. nst (PAPS-JK) by majority
[Sec. itu of all the
28( tio 1. For the members of
3), n] same the Congress.
Art. Purpose [Art. VI, 1987
It means taxing the tax in the ; Constitution,
the same property expectation that 2. By the Sec. 28(4)]
twice when it the tax given up same
should be taxed for this taxing Revocability of tax
only once; that is, particular Authori exemptions
“taxing the same investment is ty;
person twice by not taxed by the 1. Exemptio
the same other country. n is
jurisdiction for granted
the same thing.” It In order to gratuitou
is obnoxious eliminate double sly –
when the taxation, a tax revocable
taxpayer is taxed treaty resorts to ; and
twice, when it several 2. Exemptio
should be but methods. First, it n is
once. Otherwise sets out the granted
described as respective rights for
“direct duplicate to tax of the valuable
taxation,” the two state of source considera
tion (non-
taxes must be or situs and of
impairme
imposed on the the state off
nt of
same subject residence with
contracts
matter, for the regard to certain
) –
same purpose, by classes of
irrevocab
the same taxing income or
le.
authority, within capital. Second,
the same whenever the
Construction of tax
jurisdiction, state of source is
laws
during the same given a full or
taxing period; and limited right to
In case of doubt,
the taxes must be tax together
tax statutes are to
of the same kind with the state of
be construed
or character. (City residence, the
strictly against the
of Manila v. Coca- treaties make it
Government and
Cola Bottlers incumbent upon
liberally in favor
Philippines, G.R. the state of
of the taxpayer,
No. 181845, residence to
for taxes, being
August 4, 2009) allow relief in
burdens, are not
order to avoid
to be presumed
Tax treaties double taxation.
beyond what the
(Commissioner
applicable statute
In negotiating tax of Internal
expressly and
treaties, the Revenue v. S.C
clearly declares.
underlying Johnson & Son,
(CIR v. La
rationale for Inc, June 25,
Tondena, Inc. and
reducing the tax 1999)
CTA, 5 SCRA
rate is that the
665,July 31, 1962)
Philippines will Two tax laws
give up a part of or ordinances
Construction of
BIll of RIGHTs
laws granting tax
exemptions
It must be strictly
construed against the
taxpayer, because the
law frowns on
exemption from
taxation; hence, an
exempting provision
should be construed
strictissimi juris.
(Acting Commissioner
of Customs v. Manila
Electric Company,
G.R. No. L- 23623,
June 30, 1977)
Tax vs. License fee
TAX LICENSE FEE

Levied in exercise Imposed in the exercise of
of the taxing the police power of the
power. state.
The purpose of License fees are imposed
the tax is to for regulatory purposes The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against private
generate which means that it must individuals. In the absence of governmental
revenues. only be of sufficient interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
amount to include Constitution cannot be invoked. The equal
expenses in issuing a protection erects no shield against private conduct,
license, cost of necessary however discriminatory or wrongful. (Yrasegui v.
inspection or police PAL, G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008)
surveillance, etc.
Its primary Regulation is the primary NOTE: However, where the husband invoked his
purpose is to purpose. The fact that right to privacy of communication and
generate revenue, incidental revenue is also correspondence against a private individual, his
and regulation is obtained does not make wife, who had forcibly taken from his cabinet
merely incidental. the imposition a tax. documents and private correspondence, and
presented as evidence against him, the Supreme
NOTE: Ordinarily, license fees are in the nature of Court held these papers are inadmissible in
the exercise of police power because they are in the evidence, upholding the husband’s right to
form of regulation by the State and considered as a privacy. (Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, February
manner of paying off administration costs. However, 20, 1996)
if the license fee is higher than the cost of regulating,
then it becomes a form of taxation. (Ermita-Malate RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PROPERTY
Hotel v. City Mayor of Manila, G.R. No. L-24693,
October 23, 1967) Meaning of Life
Q: Can taxes be subject to off-setting or
compensation? The right to life is not merely a right to the
preservation of life but also to the security of the
A: NO. Taxes cannot be subject to compensation limbs and organs of the human body against any
for the simple reason that the government and unlawful harm. This constitutional guarantee
the taxpayer are not creditors and debtors of each includes the right of an individual to pursue a
other. There is a material distinction between a lawful calling or occupation; to express, write or
tax and debt. Debts are due to the Government in even paint his ideas for as long as he does not
its corporate capacity, while taxes are due to the unlawfully transgress the rights of others; to
Government in its sovereign capacity. It must be exercise his freedom of choice, whether this is in
noted that a distinguishing feature of tax is that it the area of politics, religion, marriage, philosophy
is compulsory rather than a matter of bargain. and employment, or even in the planning of his
Hence, a tax does not depend upon the consent of family; and in general, to do and perform any
the taxpayer. (Philex Mining Corp. v. CIR, 294 SCRA lawful act or activity which, in his judgment, will
687, August 28, 1998) make his life worth living. (Suarez, 2016)
PRIVATE ACTS AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS Meaning of Liberty
Bill of Rights It is not only the right of a citizen to be free from

the mere physical restraint of his person, as by
Set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace
civil and political rights of the individual, and the right of the citizen to be free in the
imposing limitations on the powers of engagement of all his faculties; to be free to use
government as a means of securing the them in all lawful ways. (Allegeyer vs. Louisianna,
enjoyment of those rights. 165 U.S. 578, January 6, 1897)
The Bill of Rights governs the relationship Meaning of Property

between the individual and the State. Its concern
is not the relation between private individuals. It refers to things which are susceptible of
What it does is to declare some forbidden zones appropriation and which are already possessed
in the private sphere inaccessible to any power and found in the possession of man. (Suarez,
holder. (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, January 2016)
18, 1991)
Due process clause (1992, 1999, 2007, 2009
Bar) the
government.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or 1. The interests 1. Impartial
property without due process of law, nor shall of the public in court or
any person be denied the equal protection of the general, as tribunal
laws. (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1) distinguished clothed
from those of a with
Due process means: particular judicial
class, require power to
1. There shall be a law prescribed in the hear and
harmony with the general powers of the intervention of determine
legislature; the state. the matters
2. It shall be reasonable in its operation; 2. The means before it.
3. It shall be enforced according to the employed are 2. Jurisdiction
regular methods of procedure reasonably properly
prescribed; and necessary for acquired
4. It shall be applicable alike to all citizens the over the
of the State or to all of a class. (People v. accomplishme person of
Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939) nt of the the
Requisite
purpose and defendant
s
Purpose not unduly and over
oppressive property
The due process clause is a guaranty against any upon which is
kind of abuse and arbitrariness, by anyone in any individuals. the subject
of the branches of government. More specifically, matter of
the purpose of the due process clause is to: the
1. Prevent undue encroachment against the life, proceeding.
liberty and property of individuals. 3. Opportunit
2. Secure the individual from the arbitrary y to be
exercise of powers of government, unrestrained heard.
by the established principles of private rights and 4. Judgment
distributive justice. rendered
3. Protect property from confiscation by upon lawful
legislative enactments from seizure, forfeiture, hearing and
and destruction without a trial and conviction by based on
the ordinary modes of judicial procedures. evidence
(Suarez, 2016) adduced.
Kinds of due process

Substantive due process
1. Procedural Due Process; and
2. Substantive Due Process. It requires the intrinsic validity of the law in
interfering with the rights of the person to his life,
liberty, or property. If a law is invoked to take
PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE away one’s life, liberty or property, the more
PROCESS specific concern of substantive due process is not
to find out whether said law is being enforced in
SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURA accordance with procedural formalities but
DUE PROCESS L DUE whether the said law is a proper exercise of
PROCESS legislative power.
This serves as a Serves as a
restriction on the restriction on NOTE: Publication of laws is part of substantive
government’s actions of due process. It is a rule of law that before a
Purpose person may be bound by law, he must be officially
law and rule- judicial and
making powers. quasi-judicial and specifically informed of its contents. For the
agencies of publication requirement, “laws” refer to all
statutes, including those of local application and
private laws. This does not cover internal
regulations issued by administrative agencies, 2. Opportunity to be heard; and
which are governed by the Local Government 3. Court/tribunal must have jurisdiction.
Code. Publication must be full, or there is none at
all. (Tañada vs. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, Due process in extradition proceedings
December 29, 1986)
(See Extradition section under Public International
Q: The City of Manila enacted Ordinance 7783, Law for discussion)
which prohibited the establishment or
operation of business “providing certain Q: A complaint was filed against respondent
forms of amusement, entertainment, services Camille Gonzales, then Chief Librarian,
and facilities where women are used as tools Catalog Division, of the National Library for
in entertainment and which tend to disturb dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct
the community, among the inhabitants and prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
adversely affect the social and moral welfare The DECS investigating committee was
of community.” Owners and operators created to inquire into the charges against
concerned were given three months to wind Gonzales. Is she entitled to be informed of the
up their operations or to transfer to any place findings and recommendations of the
outside the Ermita-Malate area, or convert investigating committee?
said business to other kinds of business which
are allowed. Does the ordinance violate the A: NO. It must be stressed that the disputed
due process clause? investigation report is an internal communication
between the DECS Secretary and the Investigation
A: YES. These lawful establishments may only be Committee, and it is not generally intended for
regulated. They cannot be prohibited from the perusal of respondent or any other person for
carrying on their business. This is a sweeping that matter, except the DECS Secretary. She is
exercise of police power, which amounts to entitled only to the administrative decision based
interference into personal and private rights on substantial evidence made of record, and a
which the court will not countenance. There is a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and
clear invasion of personal or property rights, the evidence presented against her during the
personal in the case of those individuals desiring hearings of the investigation committee.
of owning, operating and patronizing those (Pefianco
motels and property in terms of investments v. Moral, GR. No. 132248, January 19, 2000)
made and the salaries to be paid to those who are
employed therein. If the City of Manila desired to Q: Cadet 1CL Cudia was a member of Siklab
put an end to prostitution, fornication, and other Diwa Class of 2014 of the PMA. Prof. Berong
social ills, it can instead impose reasonable issued a Delinquency Report (DR) against
regulations such as daily inspections of the Cadet 1CL Cudia because he was late for two
establishments for any violation of the conditions minutes in his class. Cudia reasoned out that:
of their licenses or permits, it may exercise its “I came directly from OR432 Class. We were
authority to suspend or revoke their licenses for dismissed a bit late by our instructor Sir.”
these violations; and it may even impose
increased license fees. (City of Manila v. Laguio, The Company Tactical Officer (CTO) of Cadet
Jr., GR. No. 118127, April 12, 2005) 1CL Cudia penalized him with demerits. Cudia
addressed his Request for Reconsideration to
Procedural due process his Senior Tactical Officer (STO), but the STO
sustained the penalty. The CTO reported him
Is the aspect of due process which serves as a to the PMA Honors Committee (HC) for
restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial violation of the Honor Code. When the
agencies of the government. It refers to the members of the HC casted their votes through
method and manner by which a law is enforced. secret balloting, the result was 8-1 in favor of
a guilty verdict. After further deliberation, the
The fundamental elements of procedural due Presiding Officer announced the 9-0 guilty
process verdict. Cudia contested the dismissal as being
violative of his right to due process.
1. Notice (to be meaningful, must be as to
time and place); Was the dismissal of Cudia a denial of his right
to due process?
A: NO. Due process in disciplinary cases involving proceedings, for
students does not entail proceedings and
hearings similar to those prescribed for actions
and proceedings in courts of justice; that the
proceedings may be summary; that cross-
examination is not an essential part of the
investigation or hearing; and that the required
proof in a student disciplinary action, which is an
administrative case, is neither proof beyond
reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence
but only substantial evidence or “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.”
What is crucial is that official action must meet
minimum standards of fairness to the individual,
which generally encompass the right of adequate
notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
It is not required that procedural due process be

afforded at every stage of developing disciplinary
action. What is required is that an adequate
hearing be held before the final act of dismissal.
(Cudia v. Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No.
211362, February 24, 2015)
Constitutional vs. Statutory Due Process
CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTORY DUE

DUE PROCESS PROCESS
Protects the While found in the
individual from the Labor Code and
government and Implementing Rules, it
assures him of his protects employees
rights in criminal, from being unjustly
civil or terminated without
administrative just cause after notice
proceedings. and hearing.
(Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, November 17,
2004)
NOTE: The Bill of rights is not meant to be

invoked against acts of private individuals like
employers. Private actions, no matter how
egregious, cannot violate constitutional due
process.
Effect when due process is not observed
The cardinal precept is that where there is a

violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are
ousted from their jurisdiction. The violation of a
party's right to due process raises a serious
jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over
or disregarded at will. Where the denial of the
fundamental right to due process is apparent, a
decision rendered in disregard of that right is
void for lack of jurisdiction. This rule is equally
true in quasi-judicial and administrative
the constitutional guarantee that no man shall be established that the POA proceeded to resolve the
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due present mining dispute without affording either
process is unqualified by the type of proceedings party any fair and reasonable opportunity to be
(whether judicial or administrative) where he stands heard, in violation of some of the provisions of
to lose the same. (Garcia v. Molina and Velasco, G.R. DENR. Hence, Mingson’s due process rights were
Nos. 157383 and 174137, August 10, violated, thereby rendering the POA’s Decision
2010) null and void. (Apo Cement vs. Mingson Mining,
GR No. 206728, November 12, 2014; J. PERLAS-
Q: In a dispute involving mining claims, Apo BERNABE)
Cement Corporation wished to take over mining
claims of certain areas that overlapped with the Effect of Waiver or Estoppel
portions of the claims of Mingson Mining
Industries Corporation. The case was eventually Due process is satisfied when the parties are
brought to the Panel of Arbitrators (POA) and afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to
they uphold a resolution in favor of Apo Cement explain their respective sides of the
without requiring the parties to file pleadings. controversy. Thus, when the party seeking due
Mingson brought the case to the DENR Mining process was in fact given several opportunities to
Arbitration Board (MAB) stating that due process be heard and air his side, but it is by his own fault
was not accorded to the party. When the case was or choice he squanders these chances, then his
brought to the CA, it affirmed the MAB’s decision. cry for due process must fail.
Is the CA correct in upholding MAB’s decision
finding that Mingson was not afforded its right to Q: A Formal Charge was issued against DPWH
due process? Officials and BAC Members for awarding the
subject project to a unregistered contractor
A: YES. The Implementing Rules of the Philippine which was not in the list of DPWH Notarial
Mining Act of 1995 clearly require that the parties Registry of Civil Works Contractors who could
involved in a mining dispute be given the bid. DPWH Officials and BAC Members were
opportunity to be heard. In this case, it has been asked to answer the issuance but denied
answering and argued it was not their duty to any court at any particular time, will be well guided, instead of
know if a contractor is registered. Since they being merely confined strictly to a precise definition which may
were not made to comment prior to, or during or may not apply in every case.
the preliminary of fact-finding investigation,
they argued that it violated their right to Not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the
administrative due process. Is there a same kind of procedure. This requires a reasonable degree of
violation against their right to administrative flexibility in applying procedural due process.
due process?
A determination of the precise nature of the government
A: NO. They expressly waived their rights to a function involved as well as of the private interest that has been
formal hearing when they denied answering the affected by governmental action must be considered in
issuance given to them. In administrative determining the application of the rules of procedure. (Cafeteria
proceedings, where opportunity to be heard, & Restaurant Workers Union v. McElroy, 367 U.S. 886, June 19,
either through oral arguments or pleadings, is 1961)
accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process. (Ebdane vs. Apurillo , G.R. No. 204172, To say that the concept of due process is flexible does not mean
December 09, 2015, PER, J. PERLAS-BERNABE) that judges are at large to apply it to any and all relationships.
Its flexibility is in its scope once it has been determined that
Relativity of due process some process is due; it is a recognition that not all situations
calling for procedural safeguards for the same kind of
Relativity of due process arises when the procedure. (Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, June 29, 1972)
definition of due process has been left to the best
judgment of our judiciary considering the Due process in judicial proceedings
peculiarity and the circumstances of each case. In
a litany of cases that have been decided in this
jurisdiction, the common requirement to be able
to conform to due process is fair play, respect for
justice and respect for the better rights of others.
In accordance with the standards of due process,
(See discussion under Administrative Law,
Whether in civil or criminal judicial Administrative Due Process)
proceedings, due process requires
that there be: Administrative vs. Judicial due process
1. An impartial and disinterested BASIS ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIAL

court clothed by law with Opportunity to A day in
authority to hear and Essence explain one’s side court
determine the matter before it; Usually through Submission
seeking a of pleadings
NOTE: The test of impartiality reconsideration of and oral
is whether the judge’s Means the ruling or the arguments
intervention tends to prevent action taken, or
the proper presentation of the appeal to a
case or the ascertainment of superior authority
the truth. Required when the Both are
administrative essential:
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired body is exercising 1. Notice
over the defendant or the Notice quasi-judicial 2. Hearing
property which is the subject and function.
matter of the proceeding; Hearin (PhilCom- Sat v.
3. Notice and opportunity to be g Alcuaz, G.R. No.
heard be given to the 84818,
defendant; and December 18,
4. Judgment to be rendered after 1989)
lawful hearing, clearly
explained as to the factual and NOTE: See further discussion of Administrative Due
legal bases. (Art. VII, 1987 Process under Administrative Law.
Constitution, Sec. 14)
Due process in academic and disciplinary
Requisites of due process in proceedings
administrative proceedings
Parties are bound by the rules governing Ambassador to Germany that the
academic requirements and standards of respondent had police records and
behavior prescribed by the educational financial liabilities in Germany. The Board
institutions. Resort to courts is available to of Commissioners (BOC) thereafter issued
parties. (Vivares and Suzara v. St. Theresa’s a Summary Deportation Order. It relied on
College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014) the correspondence from the German Vice
Consul on its speculation that it was
Due process in deportation proceedings unlikely that the German Embassy will
issue a new passport to the respondent; on
Although a deportation proceeding does not the warrant of arrest issued by the District
partake of the nature of a criminal action, Court of Germany against the respondent
however, considering that it is a harsh and for insurance fraud; and on the alleged
extraordinary administrative proceeding illegal activities of the respondent in
affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the Palawan. The BOC concluded that the
constitutional right of such person to due process respondent was not only an undocumented
should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the but an undesirable alien as well. Is the
Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on Summary Deportation Order is valid?
criminal procedure are applicable to deportation
proceedings. (Lao Gi v. CA, GR. No. 81789, A: NO. Section 37(c) of Commonwealth Act No.
December 29, 1989) 613, as amended, provides that no alien shall
be deported without being informed of the
Q: Scheer, a German, was granted permanent specific grounds for deportation or without
resident status in the country. In a letter, Vice being given a hearing under rules of procedure
Consul Hippelein informed the Philippine to be prescribed by the Commissioner of
Immigration. Under paragraphs 4 and 5 of Office
Memorandum Order No. 34, an alien cannot be without due process of law as required by the Bill
deported unless he is given a chance to be heard of Rights of the Constitution. (Domingo v. Scheer,
in a full deportation hearing, with the right to G.R. No. 154745, January 29, 2004)
adduce evidence in his behalf .The respondent
was not afforded any hearing at all. The BOC Instances when hearings are not necessary
simply concluded that the respondent committed
insurance fraud and illegal activities in Palawan 1. When administrative agencies are
without any evidence. The respondent was not exercising their quasi-legislative
afforded a chance to refute the charges. He functions;
cannot, thus, be arrested and deported 2. Abatement of nuisance per se;
3. Granting by courts of provisional
remedies;
4. Cases of preventive suspension;
5. Removal of temporary employees in the
government service;
6. Issuance of warrants of distraint and/or
levy by the BIR Commissioner;
7. Cancellation of the passport of a person
charged with a crime; and
8. Suspension of a bank’s operations by the
Monetary Board upon a prima facie
finding of liquidity problems in such
bank.
Q: Ordinance 6537 of the City of Manila makes

it unlawful for non- Filipino citizens to be
employed or to be engaged in any kind of
trade, business or occupation within the City
of Manila, without securing an employment
permit from the Mayor of Manila. Is the
ordinance unconstitutional?
A: YES. The ordinance is unconstitutional. While

it is true that the Philippines as a State is not
obliged to admit aliens within its territory, once
an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life
without due process of law. This guarantee
includes the means of livelihood. The ordinance
amounts to a denial of the basic right of the
people of the Philippines to engage in the means
of livelihood. (Mayor Villegas v. Hiu Ching Tsai Pao
Hao, G.R. No. L-29646, November 10, 1978)
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE
A law is vague when it lacks comprehensive

standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its common meaning and
differ as to its application.
In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the

Constitution because:
1. It violates due process for failure to

accord persons, especially the parties
targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct
to avoid; and
2. It leaves law enforcers an unbridled ordinances.
discretion in carrying out its provisions.
(People v. de la Piedra, G.R. No. 128777,
January 24, 2001)
The Supreme Court held that the doctrine can

only be invoked against that species of legislation
that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which
cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by
construction. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
148560, November 19, 2001)
The void-for-vagueness doctrine cannot be used

to impugn the validity of a criminal statute using
“facial challenge” but it may be used to invalidate
a criminal statute “as applied” to a particular
defendant.
Q: Navotas City, City of Manila, and Quezon

City started to strictly implement their
respective curfew ordinances on minors
through police operations. Petitioners argue
that the Curfew Ordinances are
unconstitutional because they result in
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement as
there are no clear provisions or detailed
standards on how law enforcers should
apprehend and properly determine the age of
the alleged curfew violators, and thus, fall
under the void for vagueness doctrine. Is the
petitioners’ contention proper?
A: NO. The void for vagueness doctrine is

premised on due process considerations, which
are absent from this particular claim. Petitioners
fail to point out any ambiguous standard in any of
the provisions of the Curfew Ordinances, but
rather, lament the lack of detail on how the age of
a suspected minor would be determined. The
mechanisms related to the implementation of the
Curfew Ordinances are, however, matters of
policy that are best left for the political branches
of government to resolve. Verily, the objective of
curbing unbridled enforcement is not the sole
consideration in a void for vagueness analysis;
rather, petitioners must show that this perceived
danger of unbridled enforcement stems from an
ambiguous provision in the law that allows
enforcement authorities to second-guess if a
particular conduct is prohibited or not prohibited.
Besides, petitioners are mistaken in claiming that

there are no sufficient standards to identify
suspected curfew violators. While it is true that
the Curfew Ordinances do not explicitly state
these parameters, law enforcement agents are
still bound to follow the prescribed measures
found in statutory law when implementing
Specifically, RA 9344, as amended burden of justification on the part of the
which provides the mechanisms for Government must be exceptionally convincing
the determination of age. (SPARK, and irrefutable. (Adiong v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
Et. al. vs. Quezon City, GR No. 103956, March 31, 1992)
225442, August 08, 2017, PER, J. The constitutional right to the free exercise of
PERLAS-BERNABE) one's religion has primacy and preference over
union security measures which are merely
HEIRARCHY OF RIGHTS contractual. (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’
Union, G.R. No. L-25246, September 12, 1974)
There is a hierarchy of
constitutional rights. While the Bill Judicial standards of review
of Rights also protects property
rights, the primacy of human rights 1. Deferential review ( or Rational Basis Test) –
over property rights is recognized. Laws are upheld if they rationally further a
Property and property rights can legitimate governmental interest, without
be lost through prescription; but courts seriously inquiring into the
human rights are imprescriptible. substantiality of such interest and examining
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the alternative means by which the objectives
the rights of free expression and of could be achieved.
assembly occupy a preferred
position as they are essential to the This test is applicable for economic, property
preservation and vitality of our and commercial legislation. (White Light
civil and political institutions. Corporation v. City of Manila)
(Philippine Blooming Mills
Employees Organization v. 2. Intermediate review – The substantiality of
Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc., the governmental interest is seriously looked
G.R. No. L-31195, June 5, 1973) into and the availability of less restrictive
(2012 alternatives is considered.
Bar) 3. Strict scrutiny – The focus is on the presence
of compelling, rather than substantial
The right to property may be governmental interest and on the absence of
subject to a greater degree of less restrictive means for achieving that
regulation but when this right is interest. (Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza
joined by a "liberty" interest, the
in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965, Q: EO 1 was issued by President Aquino to

February 26, 2002) investigate reported cases of graft and
corruption of the Arroyo administration. Is
This requires the government to show an such action valid?
overriding or compelling government
interest so great that it justifies the limitation A: NO. It must be borne in mind that the
of fundamental constitutional rights. As such, Arroyo administration is but just a member of
the courts make the decision of whether or a class, that is, a class of past administrations.
not the purpose of the law makes the It is not a class of its own. Not to include past
classification necessary. administrations similarly situated constitutes
arbitrariness which the equal protection
EQUAL PROTECTION clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating
differentiation clearly reverberates to label the
All persons or things similarly situated should be commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and selective retribution. (Biraogo
responsibilities imposed. It guarantees equality, v. Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, G.R. No.
not identity of rights. It does not forbid 192935, December 7, 2010)
discrimination as to persons and things that are
different. What it forbids are distinctions based Q: Are aliens entitled to the protection of
on impermissible criteria unrelated to a proper equal protection clause?
legislative purpose, or class or discriminatory
legislation, which discriminates against some and A: GR: It applies to all persons, both citizens
favors others when both are similarly situated. and aliens. The Constitution places the civil
rights of aliens on equal footing with those of the
citizens.
Rationale for allowing, in exceptional cases,
XPN: Statutes may validly limit exclusively to valid classification based on citizenship
citizens the enjoyment of rights or privileges
connected with public domain, the public works, Aliens do not naturally possess the sympathetic
or the natural resources of the State. consideration and regard for customers with
whom they come in daily contact, nor the
NOTE: The rights and interests of the State in patriotic desire to help bolster the nation’s
these things are not simply political but also economy, except insofar as it enhances their
proprietary in nature and so citizens may lawfully profit, nor the loyalty and allegiance which the
be given preference over aliens in their use or national owes to the land. These limitations on
enjoyment. the qualifications of aliens have been shown on
many occasions and instances, especially in times
of crisis and emergency. (Ichong v. Hernandez,
G.R. No. L-7995, May 31, 1957)
REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION
The classification must (S-G-Ex-A)
1. Rest on substantial distinctions;

2. Be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. Not be limited to existing conditions only; and
4. Apply equally to all members of the same
class. (People v. Cayat, GR. No. L-45987, May 5,
1939)
Basis for classification
1. Age;
2. Gender;
3. Religion;
4. Economic Class;
5. Ethnicity;
6. Race;
7. Sexual Orientation;
8. Residence;
9. Disability; and
10. Date of filing / Effectivity of the law.
Q: Rosalie Garcia filed a case against her

husband, Jesus Garcia, for violation of R.A.
9262. The RTC then issued a Temporary
Protection Order. Jesus argues that R.A. 9262
violates the guarantee of equal protection
because the remedies against personal
violence that it provides may be invoked only
by the wives or women partners but not by
the husbands or male partners even if the
latter could possibly be victims of violence by
their women partners. Does R.A. 9262 (VAWC)
violate the equal the protection clause of the
Constitution?
A: NO. R.A. 9262 rests on substantial distinction.

There is an unequal power relationship between
women and men and the fact that women are
more
likely than men to be victims of violence and the all medical practitioners without distinction whether they
widespread gender bias and prejudice against belong to the public or private sector. After
women all make for real differences justifying the
classification under the law. The classification is
germane to the purpose of the law. The
distinction between men and women is germane
to the purpose of R.A. 9262, which is to address
violence committed against women and children.
As spelled out in its Declaration of Policy, the

State recognizes the need to protect the family
and its members particularly women and
children, from violence and threats to their
personal safety and security. Moreover, the
application of R.A. 9262 is not limited to the
existing conditions when it was promulgated, but
to future conditions as well, for as long as the
safety and security of women and their children
are threatened by violence and abuse.
Furthermore, R.A. 9262 applies equally to all
women and children who suffer violence and
abuse.
There is likewise no merit to the contention that

R.A. 9262 singles out the husband or father as the
culprit. As defined above, VAWC may likewise be
committed "against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship." Clearly, the use of the gender-
neutral word "person" who has or had a sexual or
dating relationship with the woman encompasses
even lesbian relationships. Moreover, while the
law provides that the offender be related or
connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it
does not preclude the application of the principle
of conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code.
(Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. 179267, June 25,
2013, PER, J. PERLAS- BERNABE)
Q: Sec. 5.23 of the Reproductive Health Law-

IRR provides that skilled health professional
such as provincial, city or municipal health
officers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses,
supervising midwives cannot be considered as
conscientious objectors. Is this provision
unconstitutional?
A: YES. This is discriminatory and violative of the

equal protection clause. The conscientious
objection clause should be equally protective of
the religious belief of public health officers. There
is no perceptible distinction why they should not
be considered exempt from the mandates of the
law. The protection accorded to other
conscientious objectors should equally apply to
all, the freedom to believe is of the equal protection clause of the
intrinsic in every individual and the Constitution?
protective robe that guarantees its
free exercise is not taken off even if A: YES. In the field of equal protection, the
one acquires employment in the guarantee that “no person shall be denied the
government. (Imbong v. Ochoa, G.R. equal protection of the laws” includes the
No. 204819, April 8, 2014) prohibition against enacting laws that allow
invidious discrimination, directly or indirectly. If
Q: The New Central Bank Act a law has the effect of denying the equal
created two categories of
employees: (1) BangkoSentral ng RATIONAL BASIS, STRICTSCRUTINY, AND
Pilipinas officers who are exempt INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST
from the Salary Standardization protection of the law, or permits such denial, it is
Law (SSL) and (2) rank- and-file unconstitutional. It is against this standard that
employees with salary grade 19 the disparate treatment of the BSP rank-and-file
and below who are not exempt from the other Government Financial Institutions
from the SSL. Subsequent to the (GFI) cannot stand judicial scrutiny. For, as
enactment of the Act, the regards the exemption from the coverage of the
charters of the Land Bank of the SSL, there exists no substantial distinction so as to
Philippines and all other differentiate the BSP rank-and-file from the other
Government Financial rank-and-file of other GFIs. The challenged
Institutions (GFIs) were provision of the New Central Bank Act was
amended exempting all their facially neutral insofar as it did not differentiate
personnel, including the rank- between the rank-and-file employees of the BSP
and-file employees, from the and the rank-and-file employees of other GFIs,
coverage of the SSL. BSP and yet its effects, when taken in light of the
Employees Association filed a exemption of the latter employees from the SSL,
petition to prohibit the BSP from were discriminatory. (Central Bank Employees
implementing the provision of Association, Inc., v. BangkoSentral ng Pilipinas, G.R.
the Act for they were illegally No. 148208, December 15, 2004)
discriminated against when they
were placed within the coverage
of the SSL. Was there a violation Tests in determining compliance with the
equal protection clause (2015 Bar)
1. Rational Basis Test – The traditional test, It is applied when the challenged statute
which requires "only that government must either:
not impose differences in treatment except
upon some reasonable differentiation fairly a. Classifies on the basis of an inherently
related to the object of regulation." Simply suspect characteristic; or
put, it merely demands that the classification b. Infringes fundamental constitutional
in the statute reasonably relates to the rights; that all legal restrictions which
legislative purpose. (Concurring Opinion of curtail the civil rights of a single racial
Justice Leonardo-De Castro in Garcia v. Drilon, group are immediately suspect. That
G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013) is not to say that all such restrictions
are unconstitutional. It is to say that
2. Strict Scrutiny Test – This refers to the courts must subject them to the most
standard for determining the quality and the rigid scrutiny. The presumption of
amount of governmental interest brought to constitutionality is reversed; that is,
justify the regulation of fundamental such legislation is assumed to be
freedoms. Strict scrutiny is used today to test unconstitutional until the government
the validity of laws dealing with the demonstrates otherwise. (Central
regulation of
RATIONAL speech, gender,
BASIS STRICTorSCRUTINY
race as well Bank Employees Association Inc. v.
as other
TEST fundamental rights as expansion BSP, GR. No. 148208, December 15,
from its earlier applications
Applies to legislative Applies to legislativeto equal 2004)
protection.
classifications (White in classifications v. City of
Light Corporation
Manila, G.R. No. 122846,
general, such as those affecting Januaryfundamental
20, 2009) Rational Basis Test vs. Strict Scrutiny
pertaining to rights or suspect
economic or social classes.
legislation, which do
not affect
fundamental rights of
suspect classes; or is
Right against unreasonable searches and
not based on gender seizures
or illegitimacy.
Legislative purpose Legislative purpose Right of the people to be secure in their persons,
must be legitimate. must be compelling. houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
Classification must be Classification must be searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
rationally related to necessary and any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
the legislativenarrowly tailored to warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
purpose. achieve the legislative upon probable cause to be determined personally
purpose. by the judge after examination under oath or
(Central Bank Employees Association Inc. v. BSP, GR. affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
No. 148208, December 15, 2004) he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and persons or things to be
3. Intermediate Scrutiny Test –It requires that the seized. (1987 Constitution, Art. 3, Sec. 2)
classification (means) must serve an important
governmental objective (ends) and is Essence of privacy
substantially related to the achievement of such
objective. A classification based on sex is the The right to be left alone. In context, the right to
best-established example of an intermediate privacy means the right to be free from
level of review. (Concurring Opinion of Justice unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from
Leonardo-De Castro in Garcia v. Drilon, G.R. No. intrusion into ones’ private activities in such a
179267, June 25, 2013) way as to cause humiliation to a person’s
ordinary sensibilities.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Search warrant vs. Warrant of arrest
BASIS SEARCH WARRANT

WARRANT OF ARREST
The judge It is not
As to
must necessary
authority
personally that the judge
, which
examine in should
examines
the form of personally
searching examine the
questions complainant Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967)
and and his
answers, in witnesses;
writing and the judge
under oath, would simply
the personally
complainant review the
and the initial
witnesses he determinatio
may produce n of the
on facts prosecutor to
personally see if it is
known to supported by
them. substantial
evidence.
The He merely
determinati determines
on of the
probable probability,
cause not the
depends to a certainty of
large extent guilt of the
upon the accused and,
finding or in so doing,
Basis of opinion of he need not
determination the judge conduct a
who new hearing.
conducted
the required
examination
of the
applicant
and the
witnesses.
REQUISITES FOR A VALID WARRANT
1. It must be issued upon determination of

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. (HPS
Software and Communication Corporation
and Yap v. PLDT,
G.R. Nos. 170217 and 170694, December 10,
2012)
NOTE: General warrant is not allowed. It must be

issued pursuant to a specific offense. (Stonehill v.
General warrants 1. The description therein is as specific as
the circumstances will ordinarily allow;
Warrants of broad and general or
characterization or sweeping 2. The description expresses a conclusion of
descriptions which will authorize fact, not of law, by which the warrant
police officers to undertake a fishing officer may be guided in making the
expedition to seize and confiscate search and seizure; or
any and all kinds of evidence or 3. The things described are limited to those
articles relating to an offense. which bear direct relation to the offense
for which the warrant is being issued.
Purpose of particularity of
description in search warrants Properties subject to seizure
1. Readily identify the 1. Property subject of the offense;

properties to be seized and 2. Stolen or embezzled property and other
thus prevent the peace proceeds or fruits of the offense; or
officers from seizing the 3. Property used or intended to be used as
wrong items; and means for the commission of an offense.
2. Leave peace officers with
no discretion regarding the NOTE: Seized items in violation of Art. 201 of the
articles to be seized and RPC, such as immoral doctrines, obscene
thus prevent unreasonable publications and indecent shows, can be
searches and seizures. destroyed even if the accused was acquitted. P.D.
(Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 No. 969 (An Act amending Art. 201) mandates the
SCRA 823, February forfeiture and destruction of pornographic
27, 1971) materials involved in the violation of Article 201
of the Revised Penal Code, even if the accused was
Particularity of description for a acquitted. (Nogales v. People, G.R. No. 191080,
search warrant is complied with November 21, 2011)
when:
Nature of search warrant proceedings
Neither a criminal action nor a commencement of cause is based only on the likelihood, or
a prosecution. It is solely for the possession of probability, of guilt. (Estrada v. Office of the
personal property. (United Laboratories, Inc. v. Ombudsman, et al., G.R. Nos. 212140–41,
Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005) January 21, 2015, cited in ABS-CBN Corporation
v. Gozon, G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015)
Probable cause
Q: LPG Dealers Association and Total Gaz
Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of LPG Dealers Association filed a letter-
a search warrant, is such reasons supported by complaint before the NBI-IRO, requesting
facts and circumstances as will warrant a assistance in the surveillance,
cautious man to believe that his action and the investigation, apprehension and
means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and prosecution of respondents for alleged
proper. It requires facts and circumstances that illegal trading of LPG products and/or
would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe underfilling, possession and/or sale of
that an offense has been committed and that the underfilled LPG products. The NBI-IRO -
objects sought in connection with that offense are through its agent De Jamil and undercover
in the place to be searched. (HPS Software and NBI asset Antonio conducted surveillance
Communications Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, G.R. Nos. and test- buy operations and thereafter
170217 and 170694, December 10, 2012) they filed two Applications for Search
Warrant to conduct a search of the
Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the Magsingal LPG refilling plant. Can the
issuance of a warrant that in themselves are personal knowledge of the witnesses of the
sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on commission of the illegal trading and
them and act in pursuance thereof. underfilling of LPG products be a basis for
determining probable cause in search
The evidence necessary to establish probable warrant applications?
A: YES. A finding of probable cause needs only to The judge, in determining probable cause, is to
rest on evidence showing that, more likely than consider the totality of the circumstances made
not, a crime has been committed and that it was known to him and not by a fixed and rigid
committed by the accused. Probable cause formula, and must employ a flexible, totality of
demands more than bare suspicion; it requires the circumstances standard. Facts discovered
less than evidence which would justify conviction. during surveillance - on the basis of information
and evidence provided by petitioners - constitute
personal knowledge which could form the basis
for the issuance of a search warrant. (Petron LPG
Dealers Association v. Ang, G.R. No. 199371,
February 3, 2016)
Personal knowledge
1. The person to be arrested must execute an

overt act indicating that he had just
committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or
within the view of the arresting officer.
NOTE: Initial hearsay information or tips from

confidential informants could very well serve as
basis for the issuance of a search warrant, if
followed up personally by the recipient and
validated. Looking at the records, it is clear that
Padilla and his companions were able to
personally verify the tip of their informant. The
evidence on record clearly shows that the
applicant and witnesses were able to verify the
information obtained from their confidential
source. The evidence likewise shows that there
was probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant. Thus, the requirement of personal
knowledge of the applicant and witnesses was
clearly satisfied in this case. (Microsoft
Corporation v. Samir Farajallah, G.R. No. 205800,
September 10, 2014)
Mere “reliable information” will not satisfy

the “personal knowledge” requirement
The long-standing rule in this jurisdiction, applied

with a great degree of consistency, is that
“reliable information” alone is not sufficient to
justify a warrantless arrest under Section 5(a),
Rule
113. The rule requires, in addition, that the
accused perform some overt act that would
indicate that he “has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense.”
In the leading case of People v. Burgos, this Court

held that “the officer arresting a person who has
just committed, is committing, or is about to
commit an offense must have personal
knowledge of that fact. The offense must also be
committed in his presence or within his for a beach party they were about to attend,
view.” In Burgos, the authorities obtained
information that the accused had forcibly
recruited one Cesar Masamlok as member of the
New People’s Army, threatening the latter with a
firearm. Upon finding the accused, the arresting
team searched his house and discovered a gun as
well as purportedly subversive documents.
(People v. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037, September 26,
2003)
Searching questions
Examination by the investigating judge of the

complainant and the latter’s witnesses in writing
and under oath or affirmation, to determine
whether there is a reasonable ground to believe
that an offense has been committed and whether
the accused is probably guilty thereof so that a
warrant of arrest may be issued and he may be
held liable for trial.
A police officer cannot amplify or modify what

has been set out in the warrant
Such a change is proscribed by the Constitution

which requires a search warrant to particularly
describe the place to be searched; otherwise it
would open the door to abuse of the search
process, and grant to officers executing the search
that discretion which the Constitution has
precisely removed from them.
The particularization of the description of the

place to be searched may properly be done only
by the judge, and only in the warrant itself; it
cannot be left to the discretion of the police
officers conducting the search.
It is neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to

search a place different from that stated in the
warrant on the claim that the place actually
searched —although not that specified in the
warrant — is exactly what they had in view when
they applied for the warrant and had demarcated
in their supporting evidence. What is material in
determining the validity of a search is the place
stated in the warrant itself, not what applicants
had in their thoughts, or had represented in the
proofs they submitted to the court issuing the
warrant. (People v. CA, 291 SCRA 400, June 26,
1998)
Q: Nenita and Julienne were graduating high

school students at St. Theresa’s College (STC),
Cebu City. While changing into their swimsuits
Julia and Julienne, along with Respondents were mere recipients of what were
several others, took digital posted. They did not resort to any unlawful
pictures of themselves clad only means of gathering the information as it was
in their undergarments. These voluntarily given to them by persons who had
pictures were then uploaded legitimate access to the said posts. Clearly, the
by Angela on her Facebook fault, if any, lies with the friends of the minors.
profile. Curiously enough, however, neither the minors
nor their parents imputed any violation of privacy
Back at the school, Escudero, a against the students who showed the images to
computer teacher at STC’s high Escudero. (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R. No.
school department, learned from 202666, September 29, 2014)
her students that some seniors at
STC posted pictures online, Q: PNP constituted a team to implement a
depicting themselves from the search warrant issued by the Judge to search
waist up, dressed only in Edmund Bulauitan's residence. Before going
brassieres.Escudero reported to the target residence, the search team first
the matter and, through one of went to the house of the Barangay Chairman,
her student’s Facebook page, who in turn, assigned Kagawad Jerry (Kgd.
showed the photos to Tigol, STC’s Jerry) and Kagawad Herald (Kgd. Herald) as
Discipline- in-Charge, for search witnesses. Upon arriving at Bulauitan's
appropriate action. Were residence, the search team was met by
unlawful means used by STC in Bulauitan's two (2) children and housekeeper,
gathering information about the who informed them that Bulauitan was not
photo? home. This notwithstanding, the search team
explained to the children and housekeeper
A: NO. Even assuming that the the reason for their presence, prompting the
photos in issue are visible only to latter to allow them inside the house and
the sanctioned students’ Facebook conduct the search. SPO2 Baccay then
friends, respondent STC can hardly proceeded to Bulauitan's room and there,
be taken to task for the perceived discovered three
privacy invasion since it was the (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing
minors’ Facebook friends who white crystalline substance which was later
showed the pictures to Tigol. on confirmed as shabu.
Based on the testimonies, it was discovered reveals that the policemen involved in the
that: (a) Bulauitan was not in his residence search of Bulauitan's residence — as shown in
when the search was conducted; (b) his their own testimonies - did not conduct the
daughter, Maria, was not able to witness SPO2 search in accordance with Section 8, Rule 126
Baccay's search of Bulauitan's room as PO3 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Tagal kept her in the living room and even Worse, the search team even instructed Maria
instructed her to leave the house to contact to contact her father via telephone, which she
her parents; and (c) Kgd. Jerry and Kgd. could only do by leaving their residence and
Herald neither witnessed the search as they going to the house of a certain Dr. Romeo Bago
remained outside Bulauitan's residence. The (Dr. Bago) to use the telephone therein. It was
RTC finds Balauitan guilty and was affirmed only after her return to their residence that
by the CA. Should the SC uphold the decision? SPO2 Baccay announced that they have
allegedly found shabu in Bulauitan's room.
A: NO. Section 8, Rule 126 Search of house, room, The search conducted therein by the search
or premises to be made in presence of two team fell way below the standard mandated by
witnesses, provides that a search under the Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of
strength of a warrant is required to be witnessed Criminal Procedure, and thus deemed
by the lawful occupant of the premises sought to unreasonable within the purview of the
be searched. It must be stressed that it is only exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution.
upon their absence that their presence may be (Edmund Bulauitan Y Mauayan vs. People of
replaced by two (2) persons of sufficient age and The Philippines, G.R. No. 218891, September
discretion residing in the same locality. 19, 2016, PER, J. PERLAS-BERNABE)
In this case, a judicious perusal of the records Absence of the required witnesses
The absence of the required witnesses does not and photography were done before any
per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. representative from the DOJ and the media.
However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a Hence, the Court is impelled to conclude that the
showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to integrity and evidentiary value of the items
secure the required witnesses must therefore be purportedly seized from Feriol – which constitute
adduced. In this case, while the, inventory and the the corpus delicti of the crimes charged – have
photography of the seized items were made in the been compromised. (People of The Philippines
presence of Feriol and an elected public official, vs. Benjamin Feriol Y Perez, G. R. No. 232154,
the records do not show that the said inventory August 20, 2018; People of The Philippines vs.
Christopher Baptista Y Villa, G. R. No. 225783,
August 20, 2018; People of The Philippines vs.
Maricel Patacsil Y Moreno, G. R. No. 234052,
August 6, 2018, PER, J. PERLAS-BERNABE)
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Instances of a valid warrantless search (2000,

2009, 2015 Bar)
1. Visual search is made of moving vehicles at

checkpoints;
2. Search is an incident to a valid arrest;
NOTE: An officer making an arrest may take

from the person:
a. Any money or property found upon his

person which was used in the
commission of the offense
b. Was the fruit thereof
c. Which might furnish the prisoner with
the means of committing violence or
escaping
d. Which might be used as evidence in the
trial of the case
3. Search of passengers made in airports;

4. When things seized are within plain view of a
searching party (Plain View Doctrine);
5. Stop and frisk (precedes an arrest);
6. When there is a valid express waiver made
voluntarily and intelligently;
NOTE: Consent to a search is not to be lightly

inferred, but shown by clear and convincing
evidence. Consent must also be voluntary in
order to validate an otherwise illegal search;
that is, the consent must be unequivocal,
specific, intelligently given, and
uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.
[Caballes v CA, 373 SCRA 221 (2002)] (2015
Bar)
In this case, petitioner was merely "ordered"

to take out the contents of his pocket.
(Alcaraz
v. People, G.R. No. 199042, November 17, 2014)
7. Customs search; and
8. Exigent and emergency circumstances. A: NO.The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an
(People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716, July 6, initial intrusion or properly be in a
1994)
Plain View Doctrine (2012 Bar)
Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in

the "plain view" of an officer, who has a right to be
in the position to have that view, are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence. It
applies when the following requisites concur: (J-
I- A)
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the

evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he
can view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is
inadvertent; and
3. It is immediately apparent to the officer that
the item he observes may be evidence of a
crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to
seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make

an initial intrusion or properly be in a position
from which he can particularly view the area. In
the course of such lawful intrusion, he came
inadvertently across a piece of evidence
incriminating the accused. The object must be
open to eye and hand, and its discovery
inadvertent. (Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 190889,
January 10, 2011)
NOTE: Plain View Doctrine cannot be applied

where there was no evidence in plain view of law
enforcers serving the search warrant. (United
Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28,
2005)
Q: Kwino, a drug pusher was entrapped in a

buy bust operation. He led the police officers
to the house of Carlo Ray, his supposed
associate and his house was searched. A
cardboard box with bricks of marijuana inside
was found in her residence. However, Carlo
Ray’s warrantless arrest was declared illegal
by the court. It follows that the search of his
person and home and the subsequent seizure
of the marked bills and marijuana cannot be
deemed legal as an incident to her arrest. Was
the marijuana in the cardboard box in plain
view during the search, making the
warrantless seizure valid and acceptable in
evidence?
position from which he can reason must exist in light of a police officer’s
particularly view the area. In the experience and surrounding conditions to
course of such lawful intrusion, he warrant the belief that the person detained has
came inadvertently across a piece weapons concealed. (Malacat v. CA, G.R. No.
of evidence incriminating the 123595, December 12, 1997)
accused. The object must be open
to eye and hand and its discovery Checkpoints
inadvertent.
Searches conducted in checkpoints are lawful,
It is clear that an object is in plain provided the checkpoint complies with the
view if the object itself is plainly following requisites:
exposed to sight. The difficulty
arises when the object is inside a 1. The establishment of checkpoint must be
closed container. Where the object pronounced;
seized was inside a closed package, 2. It must be stationary, not roaming; and
the object itself is not in plain view 3. The search must be limited to visual
and therefore cannot be seized search and must not be an intrusive
without a warrant. However, if the search.
package proclaims its contents,
whether by its distinctive NOTE: Not all searches and seizures are
configuration, its transparency, or if prohibited. Between the inherent right of the
its contents are obvious to an State to protect its existence and promote public
observer, then the contents are in welfare and an individual’s right against
plain view and may be seized. warrantless search which is however reasonably
(People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, conducted, the former should prevail.
January 22, 1999)
A checkpoint is akin to a stop-and-frisk situation
Stop-and-frisk search (2009, 2012 Bar) whose object is either to determine the identity of
suspicious individuals or to maintain the status
Limited protective search of outer quo momentarily while the police officers seek to
clothing for weapons. Probable obtain more information. (Valmonte v. De Villa,
cause is not required but a genuine G.R. No. 83988, September 29, 1989)
Motorists and their vehicles passing through only reason why they asked petitioner to get
checkpoints may also be stopped and out of the vehicle was not because he has
extensively searched committed a crime, but because of their
intention to invite him to Station 9 so he could
While, as a rule, motorists and their vehicles rest before he resumes driving. But instead of
passing through checkpoints may only be a tactful invitation, the apprehending officers,
subjected to a routine inspection, vehicles may be in an act indicative of overstepping of their
stopped and extensively searched when there is duties, dragged the petitioner out of the
probable cause which justifies a reasonable belief vehicle and, in the process of subduing him,
among those at the checkpoints that either the pointed a gun and punched him on the face.
motorist is a law offender or the contents of the None of the police officers, to note,
vehicle are or have been instruments of some categorically denied the petitioner’s allegation
offense. (People v. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137, about being physically hurt before being
January 20, 2004) brought to the Ospital ng Maynila to be tested
for intoxication. What the policemen claimed
Checkpoint rules under LTO Code (R.A. 4136) was that it took the three (3) of them to
subdue the fifty-five year old petitioner. Both
There is, to stress, nothing in R.A. 4136 that actions were done in excess of their authority
authorized the checkpoint-manning policemen to granted under R.A. 4136. (Sydeco v. People,
order petitioner and his companions to get out of G.R. No. 202692, November 12, 2014)
the vehicle for a vehicle and body search. And it
bears to emphasize that there was no reasonable Q: Star was a lady frisker whose duty is to
suspicion of the occurrence of a crime that would frisk departing passengers, employees, and
allow what jurisprudence refers to as a "stop and crew and check for weapons, bombs,
frisk" action. As SPO4 Bodino no less testified, the prohibited drugs, contraband goods, and
explosives. When she frisked Rochelle, a
boarding passenger, she felt something hard A: NO. Persons may lose the protection of the
on Rochelle’s abdominal area which was later search and seizure clause by exposure of their
found to be three packs of shabu. Can Rochelle persons or property to the public in a manner
invoke a violation of the search and seizure reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of
clause? privacy, which expectation society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is
implicit in airport security procedures. With
increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the
nation’s airport. (People v. Leila Johnson, G.R.
No.138881, December 18, 2000)
Q: Luz was flagged down by PO3 Alteza for

driving a motorcycle without a helmet. Alteza
invited Luz to their sub-station and while
issuing a citation ticket for violation of
municipal ordinance, Alteza was alerted by
the latter’s uneasy movement and asked him
to put out the contents of the pocket of his
jacket. It was revealed that Luz was in
possession of prohibited drugs. Can the
roadside questioning of a motorist detained
pursuant to a routine traffic stop be
considered a formal arrest?
A: NO. The time he was waiting for Alteza to write

his citation ticket may be characterized as waiting
time. Luz could not be said to have been under
arrest. There was no intention on the part of
Alteza to arrest him, deprive him of his liberty, or
take him into custody. In fact, Alteza himself
testified that it was only for the sake of
convenience that they were waiting at the sub-
station. (Luz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
197788, February 29,2012)
Q: A search was conducted on March 3, 1986.

During which the Philippines has no
Constitution. The Constabulary raiding team
searched the house of Elizabeth Dimaano by
virtue of a search warrant and thereafter
seized some items not included in the
warrant. Dimaano questioned the search for
being violative of the Constitution. Can she
invoke her right against unreasonable
searches and seizures during the
interregnum?
A: YES. The Bill of Rights under the 1973

Constitution was not operative during the
interregnum. Be that as it may, under Art. 17(1)
of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the revolutionary government
had the duty to insure that no one shall be
subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference
with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
Art. 17(2) provides that no one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his property. Although the signatories
to the Declaration did not intend it as a legally the immediate control of the accused. The accused may not
binding document, being only a declaration, the successfully invoke the right against a
Court has interpreted the Declaration as part of
the generally accepted principles of international
law and binding on the state. The revolutionary
government did not repudiate the Covenant or
the Declaration during the interregnum. It was
also obligated under international law to observe
the rights of individuals under the Declaration.
(Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, July
21, 2003)
Q: While sleeping in his room, Kel was

arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest and
he was dragged out of the room. Thereafter,
some police officers ransacked the locked
cabinet inside the room where they found a
firearm and ammunition. Are the warrantless
search and seizure of the firearm and
ammunition justified as an incident to a lawful
arrest?
A: NO. The scope of the warrantless search is not

without limitations. A valid arrest allows the
seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either
on the person of the one arrested or within the
area of his immediate control. The purpose of the
exception is to protect the arresting officer from
being harmed by the person arrested, who might
be armed with a concealed weapon, and to
prevent the latter from destroying evidence
within reach. In this case, search was made in the
locked cabinet which cannot be said to have been
within Kel's immediate control. Thus, the search
exceeded the bounds of what may be considered
as an incident to a lawful arrest. (Valeroso v. CA,
G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009)
Q: A buy-bust operation was conducted in

DM’s store. Police Officer CA Tandoc posed as
a buyer and bought marijuana from DM. After
the exchange of marked money and
marijuana, Tandoc arrested DM without a
warrant. The other police officer searched the
store and seized a plastic container containing
six marijuana stocks. Thereafter, DM was
charged with selling marijuana. Is the
warrantless seizure of marijuana legal?
A: YES. The search being an incident to a lawful

arrest, it needed no warrant for its validity. The
accused having been caught in flagrante delicto,
the arresting officers were duty bound to
apprehend her immediately. The warrantless
search and seizure, as an incident to a lawful
arrest, may extend to include the premises under
warrantless search, even as regards search, such a warrantless search would be
the plastic container with dried constitutionally permissible only if the officers
marijuana leaves found on the table conducting the search have reasonable or
in his store. (People v. Salazar, G.R. probable cause to believe, before the search, that
No. 98060, January 27, 1997) either the motorist is a law-offender or they will
find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to
Q: Sgt. Victorino Noceja and Sgt. a crime in the vehicle to be searched. However,
Alex de Castro, while on a the fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply
routine patrol in Pagsanjan, because it is not common for such to be covered
Laguna, spotted a passenger jeep with kakawati leaves does not constitute
unusually covered with "probable cause" as would justify the conduct of a
"kakawati" leaves. Suspecting search without a warrant. Furthermore, the
that the jeep was loaded with police authorities did not claim to have received
smuggled goods, the two police any confidential report or tipped information that
officers flagged down the vehicle Rudy was carrying stolen cable wires in his
driven by Rudy. The police vehicle which could otherwise have sustained
officers then checked the cargo their suspicion. It cannot likewise be said that the
and they discovered bundles of cable wires found in Rudy's vehicle were in plain
3.08 mm aluminum/galvanized view, making its warrantless seizure valid. The
conductor wires exclusively cable wires were not exposed to sight because
owned by National Power they were placed in sacks and covered with
Corporation (NPC). Police leaves. The articles were neither transparent nor
officers took Rudy into custody immediately apparent to the police authorities.
and seized the conductor wires. (Caballes v. CA, G. R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002)
Was Rudy’s right against
unreasonable searches and Q: A police officer flagged down a rider for
seizures violated when the police driving without a helmet. The police officer
officers searched his vehicle and invited the rider to come inside their sub-
seized the wires found therein station located near the area. While issuing a
without a search warrant? citation ticket for violation of a municipal
ordinance, the police officer noticed that the
A: YES. When a vehicle is stopped accused was uneasy and kept on reaching
and subjected to an extensive something from his jacket. He then asked the
rider to take out the contents of his jacket’s
pocket. It turned out, the rider has in his for this reason, arrested.
possession two plastic sachets of suspected
shabu. The RTC convicted him of illegal Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in
possession of dangerous drugs since he had order that he or she may be bound to answer
been lawfully arrested for a traffic violation for the commission of an offense. It is effected
and then subjected to a valid search, which led by an actual restraint of the person to be
to the discovery on his person of two plastic arrested or by that person’s voluntary
sachets of shabu. On appeal, the CA affirmed submission to the custody of the one making
the RTC’s Decision. the arrest. Neither the application of actual
force, manual touching of the body, or physical
In his appeal to the SC, the rider claims that restraint, nor a formal declaration of arrest, is
there was no lawful search and seizure, required. It is enough that there be an
because there was no lawful arrest since he intention on the part of one of the parties to
was not even issued a citation ticket or arrest the other, and that there be an intent on
charged with violation of the city ordinance. the part of the other to submit, under the
Even assuming that there was a valid arrest, belief and impression that submission is
he claims that he had never consented to the necessary.
search conducted upon him. Should the rider-
appellant’s contention be upheld? At the time that he was waiting for the police
officer to write his citation ticket, appellant
A: YES. There was no valid arrest of appellant. could not be said to have been under arrest.
When he was flagged down for committing a There was no intention on the part of the
traffic violation, he was not, ipso facto and solely former to arrest him, deprive him of his
liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the
issuance of the ticket, the period during which failure to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle
appellant was at the police station may be is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules of
characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the
found by the trial court, the only reason they information or charge was filed for an offense
went to the police sub-station was that appellant penalized by a fine only. It may be stated as a
had been flagged down almost in front of that corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be
place. Hence, it was only for the sake of made for such an offense.
convenience that they were waiting there. There There being no valid arrest, the warrantless
was no intention to take him into custody. search that resulted from it was likewise illegal.
(Rodel Luz vs. People, G. R. No. 197788, February
It also appears that, according to City Ordinance 29, 2012)
No. 98-012, which was violated by appellant, the
Waiver of Unlawful Arrests and Illegal
Searches
A waiver of an illegal arrest, however, is not a

waiver of an illegal search. Records have
established that both the arrest and the search
were made without a warrant. While the accused
has already waived his right to contest the
legality of his arrest, he is not deemed to have
equally waived his right to contest the legality of
the search. (Alcaraz v. People, G.R. No. 199042,
November 17, 2014)
ADMINISTRATIVE ARREST
There is an administrative arrest when there is an

arrest as an incident to a deportation proceeding.
The following aliens shall be arrested upon the

warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or
of any other officer designated by him for the
purpose and deported upon the warrant of the
Commissioner of Immigration after a
determination by the Board of Commissioners of
the existence of the ground for deportation as
charges against the alien:
1. Any alien who enters the Philippines

after the effective date of this Act by
means of false and misleading statements
or without inspection and admission by
the immigration authorities at a
designated port of entry or at any place
other than at a designated port of entry
(As amended by Republic Act No. 503, Sec.
13);
2. Any alien who enters the Philippines
after the effective date of CA 613
(Philippine Immigration Act of 1940), who
was not lawfully admissible at the time of
entry;
3. Any alien who, after the effective date of
this Act, is convicted in the Philippines
and sentenced for a term of one year or
more for a crime involving moral
turpitude committed within five years after his entry to the Philippines, or who,
at any time after such entry, is so convicted of violating the provisions of Commonwealth Act
convicted and sentenced more than once; No. 653 (Philippine
4. Any alien who is convicted and
sentenced for a violation of the law
governing prohibited drugs (As amended
by Republic Act No. 503, Sec. 13);
5. Any alien who practices prostitution or is
an inmate of a house of prostitution or is
connected with the management of a
house of prostitution, or is a procurer;
6. Any alien who becomes a public charge
within five years after entry from causes
not affirmatively shown to have arisen
subsequent to entry;
7. Any alien who remains in the Philippines
in violation of any limitation or condition
under which he was admitted as a non-
immigrant;
8. Any alien who believes in, advises,
advocates or teaches the overthrow by
force and violence of the Government of
the Philippines, or of constituted law and
authority or who disbelieves in or is
opposed to organized government, or
who advises, advocates or teaches the
assault or assassination of public officials
because of their office, or who advises,
advocates, or teaches the unlawful
destruction of property, or who is a
member of or affiliated with any
organization entertaining, advocating or
teaching such doctrines, or who in any
manner whatsoever lends assistance,
financial or otherwise, to the
dissemination of such doctrines;
9. Any alien who commits any of the acts
described in Sec. 45 of CA 613,
independent of criminal action which
may be brought against him: Provided,
that in the case of alien who, for any
reason, is convicted and sentenced to
suffer both imprisonment and
deportation, said alien shall first serve
the entire period of his imprisonment
before he is actually deported: Provided,
however, that the imprisonment may be
waived by the Commissioner of
Immigration with the consent of the
Department Head, and upon payment by
the alien concerned of such amount as
the Commissioner may fix and approved
by the Department Head. (Paragraph
added pursuant to Republic Act No. 144,
Sec. 3);
10. Any alien who, at any time within five
years after entry, shall have been
Alien Registration Act alienating properties to prevent them
of 1941) [now Alien from being attached or executed. (Added
Registration Act of pursuant to Republic Act No. 503, Sec. 13;
1950, Republic Act No. Philippine Immigration Act of 1940)
562, as amended] or
who, at any time after Power of the Commissioner of Immigration
entry, shall have been The Commissioner of Immigration is also given,
convicted more than by legislative delegation, the power to issue
once of violating the warrants of arrests.
provisions of the same
Act. (Added pursuant NOTE: Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution does not
to Republic Act No.
503, Sec. 13); EVIDENCE OBTAINED THROUGH PURELY
11. Any alien who engages MECHANICAL ACT
in profiteering, require judicial intervention in the execution of a
hoarding, or black-marketing, final order of deportation issued in accordance
independent of any with law. The constitutional limitation
criminal action which contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of
may be brought judicial power as a step preliminary or incidental
against him. (Added to prosecution or proceedings for a given offense
pursuant to Republic or administrative action, not as a measure
Act No. 503, Sec. 13); indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a
12. Any alien who is competent official, such as a legal order of
convicted of any deportation, issued by the Commissioner of
offense penalized Immigration, in pursuance of a valid legislation.
under Commonwealth (Morano v. Vivo, G.R. No. L-22196, June 30, 1967)
Act No. 473 (Revised
Naturalization Laws of
the Philippines) or any The constitutional right of an accused against self-
law relating to incrimination proscribes the use of physical or
acquisition of moral compulsion to extort communications from
Philippine citizenship. the accused and not the inclusion of his body in
(Added pursuant to evidence when it may be material. Purely
Republic Act No. 503, mechanical acts are not included in the
Sec. 13); and prohibition as the accused does not thereby
13. Any alien who speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding
defrauds his creditor hand of counsel is not required. The essence of
by absconding or the
right against self-incrimination is testimonial Constitution. (People vs. Anacleto Q. Olvis G.R.
compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against No. 71092, September 30, 1987)
himself through a testimonial act. (Dela Cruz vs.
People G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014) Example of purely mechanical acts:
1. a woman charged with
NOTE: No person shall be compelled to be a adultery may be compelled to
witness against himself. This constitutional submit to physical
privilege has been defined as a protection against examination to determine her
testimonial compulsion, but this has since been pregnancy; (Villaflor vs.
extended to any evidence “communicative in Summers, 41 Phil. 62 [1920])
nature” acquired under circumstances of duress 2. an accused may be compelled
essentially, the right is meant to avoid and to submit to physical
prohibit positively the repetition and the examination and to have a
recurrence of essentially inhuman procedure of substance taken from his
competing a person, in a criminal or in any other body for medical
case, to furnish the missing evidence necessary determination as to whether
for his conviction. Thus, an act, whether or he was suffering from
passive, that would amount to disclosure of any gonorrhea which was
incriminatory facts is covered by inhibition of the contracted by his victim; (U.S.
vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145
[1912]) PRIVATE AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
3. to expel morphine from his
mouth; (U.S. vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 GR: Right to privacy of communication and
Phil. 735 [1917]) correspondence is inviolable. (1987 Philippine
4. to have the outline of his foot Constitution, Sec. 3, Art. III).
traced to determine its identity
with bloody footprints; (U.S. vs. XPNs:
Salas, 25 Phil. 337 [1913]; U.S. 1. By lawful order of the court; and
vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 [1921]) 2. Public safety or public order as prescribed by
5. to be photographed or law.
measured, or his garments or
shoes removed or replaced, or to NOTE: Any evidence in violation of this right or
move his body to enable the the right against unreasonable searches and
foregoing things to be done. seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
(People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244 any proceedings.
[1950])
Anti-Wire Tapping Act (R.A. No. 4200)
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND
CORRESPONDENCE A special law prohibiting and penalizing secret
recording of conversations either through wire-
tapping or tape recorders. It provides penalties
for specific violations of private communication.
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being

authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire
or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or
record such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a dictaphone
or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or
tape-recorder, or however otherwise described.
(R.A. No. 4200, Sec. 1)
INTRUSION, WHEN ALLOWED; EXCLUSIONARY

RULE
The right to privacy is not absolute
The right of privacy or "the right to be let alone,"

like the right of free expression, is not an absolute
right. A limited intrusion into a person's privacy
has long been regarded as permissible where that
person is a public figure and the information
sought to be elicited from him or to be published
about him constitute of a public character.
Succinctly put, the right of privacy cannot be
invoked to resist publication and dissemination of
matters of public interest. The interest sought to
be protected by the right of privacy is the right to
be free from unwarranted publicity, from
the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and
activities of an individual which are outside the
realm of legitimate public concern. (Ayer
Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong, G.R. No. 82380,
April 29, 1988)
NOTE: Probable cause in Sec. 2, Art. III should be
followed for the court to allow intrusion. agencies inevitably suffers from the inefficiency,
Particularity of description is needed for written incompetence, mismanagement, or other work-
correspondence, but if the intrusion is done related misfeasance of its employees. Indeed, in
through wire-taps and the like, there is no need to many cases, public employees are entrusted with
describe the content. However, identity of the tremendous responsibility, and the consequences
person or persons whose communication is to be of their misconduct or incompetence to both the
intercepted, and the offense or offenses sought to agency and the public interest can be severe. In
be prevented, and the period of the authorization contrast to law enforcement officials, therefore,
given should be specified. public employers are not enforcers of the criminal
law; instead, public employers have a direct and
A regulation mandating the opening of mail or overriding interest in ensuring that the work of
correspondence of detainees is not violative the agency is conducted in a proper and efficient
of the constitutional right to privacy manner. In our view, therefore, a probable cause
requirement for searches of the type at issue here
There is no longer a distinction between an would impose intolerable burdens on public
inmate and a detainee with regard to the employers. The delay in correcting the employee
reasonable expectation of privacy inside his cell. misconduct caused by the need for probable
The curtailment of certain rights is necessary to cause rather than reasonable suspicion will be
accommodate institutional needs and objectives translated into tangible and often irreparable
of prison facilities, primarily internal security. As damage to the agency's work, and ultimately to
long as the letters are not confidential the public interest.
communication between the detainee and his
lawyer the detention officials may read them. But Besides, Pollo failed to prove that he had an actual
if the letters are marked confidential (subjective) expectation of privacy either in his
communication between detainee and the lawyer, office or government-issued computer which
the officer must not read them but only inspect contained his personal files. He did not allege that
them in the presence of detainees. A law is not he had a separate enclosed office which he did not
needed before an executive officer may intrude share with anyone, or that his office was always
into the rights of privacy of a detainee or a locked and not open to other employees or
prisoner. By the very fact of their detention, they visitors. Neither did he allege that he used
have diminished expectations of privacy rights. passwords or adopted any means to prevent
(Alejano v. Cabuay, G.R. No. 160792, August 25, other employees from accessing his computer
2005) files. (Pollo v. David, G.R. No. 181881, October 18,
2011)
Q: The CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-
David received a letter-complaint which said The Cybercrime Law does not regard as crime
that an employee of the CSC was a lawyer of an private communications of sexual character
accused government employee having a between consenting adults
pending case in the said agency. Acting on the
matter, she ordered the backing up of all files The deliberations of the Bicameral Committee of
in the computers found in the Public Congress on Sec.4(c)(i) of the law show a lack of
Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) of intent to penalize a private showing between and
which Briccio Pollo was the Officer-in-Charge. among two private persons although that may be
Drafts of legal pleadings were found in Pollo’s a form of obscenity to some. The understanding of
computer. Thereafter, he was charged with those who drew up the cybercrime law is that the
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Conduct element of “engaging in a business” is necessary
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service to constitute the crime of illegal cybersex. The Act
and Violation of R.A. No. 6713. On his part, actually seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white
Pollo attacks the backing up of his files as it slave trade, and pornography for favor and
was done without his knowledge and consent, consideration. This includes interactive
thus infringing on his constitutional right to prostitution and pornography, e.g., by webcam.
privacy. Is he correct? (Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335,
February 11, 2014)
A: NO. Public employers have an interest in
ensuring that their agencies operate in an Right of privacy in social media
effective and efficient manner, and the work of
these To address concerns about privacy, but without
defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with
different privacy tools designed to regulate the

accessibility of a user’s profile as well as 1. Whether, by his conduct, the individual has
information uploaded by the user. It is through exhibited an expectation of privacy; and
the availability of said privacy tools that many 2. This expectation is one that society
OSN (Online Social Network) users are said to recognizes as reasonable.”
have a subjective expectation that only those to 3. Customs, community norms, and practices
whom they grant access to their profile will view may, therefore, limit or extend an individual’s
the information they post or upload thereto. “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Hence,
the reasonableness of a person’s expectation
This, however, does not mean that any Facebook of privacy must be determined on a case-to-
user automatically has a protected expectation of case basis since it depends on the factual
privacy in all of his or her Facebook activities. circumstances surrounding the case. (Ople v.
Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998)
Before one can have an expectation of privacy in
his or her OSN activity, it is first necessary that Q: Sps. Hing were owner of a parcel of land
said user, in this case the children of and Aldo Inc. constructed an auto-repair shop
petitioners, manifest the intention to keep certain building on the adjacent lot. Aldo filed a case
posts private, through the employment of for injunction and damages claiming that the
measures to prevent access thereto or to limit its Sps. Hing were constructing a fence without
visibility. And this intention can materialize in valid permit and that the construction would
cyberspace through the utilization of the OSN’s destroy their building. The case was
privacy tools. In other words, utilization of these dismissed for failure of Aldo to substantiate
privacy tools is the manifestation, in cyber world, its allegations. Aldo Inc. then installed two
of the user’s invocation of his or her right to cameras on their building facing the property
informational privacy. of the Sps. Hing. The spouses contend that the
installation of the cameras was an invasion of
Therefore, a Facebook user who opts to make use their privacy. Is there a limitation on the
of a privacy tool to grant or deny access to his or installation of surveillance cameras?
her post or profile detail should not be denied the
informational privacy right which necessarily A: YES. In this day and age, video surveillance
accompanies said choice. Otherwise, using these cameras are installed practically everywhere for
privacy tools would be a feckless exercise, such the protection and safety of everyone. The
that if, for instance, a user uploads a photo or any installation of these cameras, however, should not
personal information to his or her Facebook page cover places where there is reasonable
and sets its privacy level at “Only Me” or a custom expectation of privacy, unless the consent of the
list so that only the user or a chosen few can view individual, whose right to privacy would be
it, said photo would still be deemed public by the affected, was obtained. Nor should these cameras
courts as if the user never chose to limit the be used to pry into the privacy of another’s
photo’s visibility and accessibility. Such position, residence or business office as it would be no
if adopted, will not only strip these privacy tools different from eavesdropping, which is a crime
of their function but it would also disregard the under Republic Act No. 4200 or the Anti-
very intention of the user to keep said photo or Wiretapping Law. (Sps. Hing v. Choachuy, G.R. No.
information within the confines of his or her 179736, June 26, 2013)
private space. (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, G.R.
No. 202666, September 29, 2014) Prohibited Acts under the Anti-Wire Tapping
Law (R.A. No. 4200) (2009 Bar)
Reasonable expectation of privacy test
1. To tap any wire or cable, or by using any other
This test determines whether a person has a device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
reasonable expectation of privacy and whether intercept, or record such communication or
the expectation has been violated. spoken word by using a device commonly known
as a dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or
In Ople v. Torres, we enunciated that “the walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
reasonableness of a person’s expectation of otherwise described by any person, not being
privacy depends on a two-part test: authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word;
2. To knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc record, or any other such record, or
copies thereof, of any communication or spoken confrontation.

word secured either before or after the effective
date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law;
3. To replay the same for any other person or
persons;
4. To communicate the contents thereof, either
verbally or in writing; or
5. To furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person.
Under Sec. 3 of RA 4200, a peace officer, who is

authorized by a written order of the Court, may
execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in
Sec. 1 and Sec. 2 of the said law in cases involving
the crimes of:
1. Treason;
2. Espionage;
3. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of
war;
4. Piracy and mutiny in the high seas;
5. Rebellion (conspiracy and proposal and
inciting to commit included);
6. Sedition (conspiracy, inciting included)
7. Kidnapping; and
8. Violations of CA 616 (punishing
espionage and other offenses
against national security).
The use of telephone extension is not a violation

of
R.A. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law). The use of a
telephone extension to overhear a private
conversation is neither among those devices, nor
considered as a similar device, prohibited under
the law. (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809 October
16, 1986)
Forms of Correspondence covered:
1. Letters;
2. Messages;
3. Telephone calls; and
4. Telegrams and the like.
Q: Ester S. Garcia, in a confrontation with

Socorro Ramirez, allegedly vexed, insulted,
and humiliated Ramirez in a "hostile and
furious mood" and in a manner offensive to
Ramirez’s dignity and personality. Ramirez
then filed a civil case for damages against
Garcia. In support of her claim, Ramirez
produced a verbatim transcript of the event.
The transcript on which the civil case was
based was culled from a tape recording of the
As a result of Ramirez’s 4200. As the Solicitor General pointed out in his
recording of the event, Garcia COMMENT before the respondent court:
filed a criminal case for violation "Nowhere (in the said law) is it required that
of RA 4200, alleging that the act before one can be regarded as a violator, the
of secretly taping the nature of the conversation, as well as its
confrontation was illegal. communication to a third person should be
Ramirez contends that the facts professed."
charged do not constitute an
offense. Was there a violation of The phrase "private communication" in Section 1
R.A. 4200? of R.A. 4200 is broad enough to include verbal or
non-verbal, written or expressive
A: YES. The unambiguity of the communications of "meanings or thoughts" which
express words of the provision, are likely to include the emotionally-charged
taken together with the above- exchange between petitioner and private
quoted deliberations from the respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office.
Congressional Record, therefore (Ramirez v. CA, G.R. No. 93833, September 28,
plainly supports the view held by 1995)
the respondent court that the
provision seeks to penalize even Q: DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales warned that
those privy to the private reporters who had copies of the compact disc
communications. Where the law (CD) and those broadcasting or publishing its
makes no distinctions, one does not contents could be held liable under the Anti-
distinguish. Wiretapping Act. Secretary Gonzales also
ordered the NBI to go after media
The nature of the conversations is organizations “found to have caused the
immaterial to a violation of the spread, the playing and the printing of the
statute. The substance of the same contents of a tape” of an alleged wiretapped
need not be specifically alleged in conversation involving the President about
the information. The mere fixing votes in 2004 national elections. Can the
allegation that an individual made a DOJ Secretary use the Anti-Wiretapping act as
secret recording of a private a regulatory measure to prohibit the media
communication by means of a tape from publishing the contents of the CD?
recorder would suffice to constitute
an offense under Section 1 of R.A. A: NO. The Court ruled that not every violation of
a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of
freedom of speech and of the press. There are

laws of great significance but their violation, by Any evidence obtained in violation of the
itself and without more, cannot support Constitution shall be inadmissible for any
suppression of free speech and free press. In fine, purpose in any proceeding. However, in the
violation of law is just a factor, a vital one to be absence of governmental interference, the
sure, which should be weighed in adjusting protection against unreasonable search and
whether to restrain freedom of speech and of the seizure cannot be extended to acts committed
press. The totality of the injurious effects of the by private individuals. (People v. Marti, G.R.
violation to private and public interest must be No. 78109, January 18, 1991)
calibrated in light of the preferred status
accorded by the Constitution and by related NOTE: This rule is commonly known as “The
international covenants protecting freedom of fruit of the poisonous tree.”
speech and of the press. By all means, violations
of law should be vigorously prosecuted by the Q: Can the exclusionary rule be applied as
State for they breed their own evil consequence. against private individuals who violate the
But to repeat, the need to prevent their violation right to privacy?
cannot per se trump the exercise of free speech
and free press, a preferred right whose breach A: YES. Although generally, the Bill of Rights
can lead to greater evils. (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. can only be invoked against violations of the
No. 168338, February 15, 2008) government, the Court has recognized an
instance where it may also be applied as
Exclusionary rule against a private individual.
Letters of a husband’s paramour kept inside the petition the government for redress of grievances.
husband’s drawer, presented by the wife in the (Art. III,Sec. 4, 1987 Philippine Constitution)
proceeding for legal separation, is not admissible
in evidence The reason is that marriage does not Rationale
divest one of his/her right to privacy of
communication. (Zulueta v. CA, G.R. No. 107383, People are kept from any undue interference
February 20, 1996) from the government in their thoughts and
words. It flows from the philosophy that the
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION authorities do not necessarily know what is best
for the people.
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of
speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the Scope of protected freedom of expression
right of the people peaceably to assemble and under the Constitution
1. Freedom of speech;
2. Freedom of the press;
3. Right of assembly and to petition the
government for redress of grievances;
4. Right to form associations or societies
not contrary to law;
5. Freedom of religion; and
6. Right to access to information on matters
of public concern.
Protected speech includes every form of

expression, whether oral, written, tape or disc
recorded. It includes motion pictures as well as
what is known as symbolic speech such as the
wearing of an armband as a symbol of protest.
Peaceful picketing has also been included within
the meaning of speech.
Speech is not limited to vocal communication.

Conduct is treated as a form of speech sometimes
referred to as ‘symbolic speech such that when
speech and non-speech elements are combined in
the same course of conduct, the ‘communicative
element’ of the conduct may be ‘sufficient to bring
into play the right to freedom of expression the
form of expression is just as important as the
information conveyed that it forms part of the
expression. (Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015)
Note: Freedom to express ones sentiments and

belief does not grant one the license to nullify the
honor and integrity of another. Any sentiment
must be expressed within the proper forum and
with proper regard for the right of others.
(Soriano
v. Laguardia, G.R. 164785, March 15, 2010)
Four aspects of freedom of speech and press
1. Freedom from censorship or prior restraint –

see discussion on prior restraint.
2. Freedom from subsequent punishment to
publication – see discussion on subsequent punishment, pg. 28.
3. Freedom of access to information regarding Q: Social Weather Station (SWS) questions COMELEC
matters of public interest – Official papers, Resolution 9674 requiring them to
reports and documents, unless held
confidential and secret by competent
authority in the public interest, are public
records. As such, they are open and subject to
regulation, to the scrutiny of the inquiring
reporter or editor. Information obtained
confidentially may be printed without
specification of the source; and that source is
closed to official inquiry, unless the
revelation is deemed by the courts, or by a
House or committee of the Congress, to be
vital to the security of the State.
4. Freedom of circulation – Refers to the
unhampered distribution of newspapers and
other media among customers and among the
general public. It may be interfered with in
several ways. The most important of these is
censorship. Other ways include requiring a
permit or license for the distribution of media
and penalizing dissemination of copies made
without it, and requiring the payment of a fee
or tax, imposed either on the publisher or on
the distributor, with the intent to limit or
restrict circulation. These modes of
interfering with the freedom to circulate have
been constantly stricken down as
unreasonable limitations on press freedom.
(Chavez v. Gonzales G.R. No. 168338, February
15, 2008) (2014 Bar)
NOTE: There need not be total suppression; even

restriction of circulation constitutes censorship.
Political Speech
Political speech is one of the most important

expressions protected by the Fundamental Law.
“and have to be protected at all costs for the sake
of democracy." (GMA Network v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. 205357, September 2, 2014). Political speech is
motivated by the desire to be heard and
understood, to move people to action. It is
concerned with the sovereign right to change the
contours of power whether through the election
of representatives in a republican government or
the revision of the basic text of the Constitution.
We evaluate restrictions on freedom of
expression from their effects. We protect both
speech and medium because the quality of this
freedom in practice will define the quality of
deliberation in our democratic society. (Diocese of
Bacolod v. COMELEC, G. R. No. 205728, January 21,
2015)
disclose the names of an electoral campaign properly subject to
commissioners and/or payors of regulation. Hence, Section 5.2 of the Fair Election
election surveys on the ground Act’s regulation of published surveys.
that it is a curtailment of free
speech. Decide. It is settled that constitutionally declared
principles are a compelling state interest. Here,
A: SWS is wrong. The names of we have established that the regulation of
those who commission or pay for election surveys effects the constitutional policy,
election surveys, including articulated in Article II, Section 26, and reiterated
subscribers of survey firms, must and affirmed in Article IX-C, Section 4 and Article
be disclosed pursuant to Section XIII, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, of
5.2(a) of the Fair Election Act. This guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for
requirement is a valid regulation in public service.
the exercise of police power and
effects the constitutional policy of While it does regulate expression (i.e., petitioners’
guaranteeing equal access to publication of election surveys), it does not go so
opportunities for public service. far as to suppress desired expression. There is
Section 5.2(a)’s requirement of neither prohibition nor censorship specifically
disclosing subscribers neither aimed at election surveys. The freedom to publish
curtails petitioners’ free speech election surveys remains. All Resolution No. 9674
rights nor violates the does is articulate a regulation as regards the
constitutional proscription against manner of publication, that is, that the disclosure
the impairment of contracts. of those who commissioned and/or paid for,
Concededly, what are involved here including those subscribed to, published election
are not election propaganda per se. surveys must be made. (Social Weather Station v.
Election surveys, on their face, do COMELEC, G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015)
not state or allude to preferred
candidates. When published, Q: COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 deviated
however, the tendency to shape from the previous COMELEC resolutions
voter preferences comes into play. relative to the airtime limitations on political
In this respect, published election advertisements. It computes the airtime on an
surveys partake of the nature of aggregate basis involving all the media of
election propaganda. It is then broadcast communications compared to the
declarative speech in the context of past where it was done on a per station basis.
The result of which is the reduction of the has clipped its wings.
allowable minutes within which candidates
and political parties would be able to It is also particularly unreasonable and
campaign through the air. Did COMELEC whimsical to adopt the aggregate-based time
commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing limits on broadcast time when we consider
said resolution? that the Philippines is not only composed of so
many islands. There are also a lot of languages
A: YES. The assailed rule on “aggregate-based” and dialects spoken among the citizens across
airtime limits is unreasonable and arbitrary as it the country. Accordingly, for a national
unduly restricts and constrains the ability of candidate to really reach out to as many of the
candidates and political parties to reach out and electorates as possible, then it might also be
communicate with the people. Here, the adverted necessary that he conveys his message
reason for imposing the “aggregate-based” through his advertisements in languages and
airtime limits – leveling the playing field – does dialects that the people may more readily
not constitute a compelling state interest which understand and relate to. To add all of these
would justify such a substantial restriction on the airtimes in different dialects would greatly
freedom of candidates and political parties to hamper the ability of such candidate to
communicate their ideas, philosophies, platforms express himself – a form of suppression of his
and programs of government. And, this is political speech.
specially so in the absence of a clear-cut basis for
the imposition of such a prohibitive measure. In COMELEC itself states that “[t]elevision is
this particular instance, what the COMELEC has arguably the most cost-effective medium of
done is analogous to letting a bird fly after one dissemination. Even a slight increase in
television exposure can significantly boost a
candidate's popularity, name recall and serve the governed, not the governors. The
electability.” If that be so, then drastically Government's power to censor the press was
curtailing the ability of a candidate to effectively abolished so that the press would remain forever
reach out to the electorate would unjustifiably free to censure the Government. The press was
curtail his freedom to speak as a means of protected so that it could bare the secrets of
connecting with the people. government and inform the people. Only a free
and unrestrained press can effectively expose
Finally on this matter, it is pertinent to quote deception in government.” (GMA Network v.
what Justice Black wrote in his concurring COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014)
opinion in the landmark Pentagon Papers case:
“In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers Q: Members of the faculty of the University of
gave the free press the protection it must have to the Philippines College of Law published a
fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The statement on the allegations of plagiarism and
press was to misrepresentation relative to a certain Court’s
decision. Essentially, the faculty calls for the
resignation of Justice Mario Pascual in the face
of allegations of plagiarism in his work.Does
this act of the faculty members squarely fall
under the freedom of speech and expression?
A: NO. The publication of a statement by the

faculty of the University of the Philippines College
regarding the allegations of plagiarism and
misrepresentation in the Supreme Court was
totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of
misplaced vigilance. While most agree that the
right to criticize the judiciary is critical to
maintaining a free and democratic society, there
is also a general consensus that healthy criticism
only goes so far. Many types of criticism leveled at
the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and
irresponsible attacks. These potentially
devastating attacks and unjust criticism can
threaten the independence of the judiciary.
(Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled
“Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of
the University of the Philippines College of Law on
the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court.”, A.M. No.
10-10-4-SC, October 19, 2010)
PRIOR RESTRAINT AND SUBSEQUENT

PUNISHMENT
Refers to the official government restrictions on

the press or other forms of expression in advance
of actual publication or dissemination. (Bernas,
The 1987 Philippine Constitution A Comprehensive
Reviewer, 2006)
NOTE: There need not be total suppression.
Freedom from prior restraint is largely freedom

from government censorship of publications,
whatever the form of censorship, and regardless
of whether it is wielded by the executive,
legislative or judicial branch of the government.
Thus, it
precludes governmental acts that required Committee did not actually enjoin the Philippines to
approval of a proposal to publish; licensing or decriminalize libel. It simply suggested that
permits as prerequisites to publication including
the payment of license taxes for the privilege to
publish; and even injunctions against
publication. Even the closure of the business and
printing offices of certain newspapers, resulting
in the discontinuation of their printing and
publication, are deemed as previous restraint or
censorship. Any law or official that requires some
form of permission to be had before publication
can be made, commits an infringement of the
constitutional right, and remedy can be had at the
courts. (Chavez v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338,
February 15, 2008)
Exceptions to the prohibition of prior restraint
1. Pornography;
2. False or Misleading Advertisement;
3. Advocacy of Imminent Lawless Actions;
and
4. Danger to National Security. (Soriano v.
Laguardia, G.R. No. 165636, April 29,
2009)
Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931) adds the

following to the enumeration:
1. When a nation is at war, many things that

might be said in time of peace are such a
hindrance to its effort that their
utterance will not be endured so long as
men fight and that no court could regard
them as protected by any constitutional
right;
2. The primary requirements of decency
may be enforced against obscene
publications; and
3. The security of community life may be
protected against incitements to acts of
violence and the overthrow by force of
orderly government.
Provisions of the Revised Penal Code on Libel

and the provision of the Cyber Crime Law on
cyber libel are constitutional
Libel is not a constitutionally protected speech

and that the government has an obligation to
protect private individuals from defamation.
Indeed, cyber libel is actually not a new crime
since Art. 353, in relation to Art. 355 of the penal
code, already punishes it. In effect, Sec. 4(c)(4)
merely affirms that online defamation constitutes
“similar means” for committing libel.
Furthermore, the United Nations Human Rights
defamation laws be crafted with of speech and expression altogether, then there is
care to ensure that they do not a ground to invalidate the law. In this instance, it
stifle freedom of expression. Free will be seen that the penalty provided has gone
speech is not absolute. It is subject beyond the in terrorem effect needed to deter
to certain restrictions, as may be crimes and has thus reached the point of
necessary and as may be provided encroachment upon a preferred constitutional
by law. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice, right.
G.R. No. 203335 February 11, 2014)
Two kinds of chilling effect
NOTE: In her dissenting and
concurring opinion, Chief Justice BENIGN CHILLING INVIDIOUS
Maria Lourdes Sereno posits that EFFECT CHILLING EFFECT
the ponencia correctly holds that May be caused by May be caused by
libel is not a constitutionally penal statutes which penal laws affecting
protected conduct. It is also correct are intended to have free speech and
in holding that, generally, penal an in terrorem effect accordingly imposes a
statutes cannot be invalidated on to prevent a penalty that is so
the ground that they produce a repetition of the discouraging thus
“chilling effect,” since by their very offense and to deter impeding the exercise
nature, they are intended to have criminality. The of speech and
an in terrorem effect (benign chilling effect is expression altogether.
chilling effect) to prevent a equated with and
repetition of the offense and to justified by the
deter criminality. The “chilling intended in terrorem
effect” is therefore equated with effect of penal
and justified by the intended in provisions.
terrorem effect of penal provisions. Permissible Not Permissible
Thus, when Congress enacts a penal Q: Nestor posted on Facebook that Juan Dela
law affecting free speech and Cruz, a married person, has an illicit affair
accordingly imposes a penalty that with Maria. Dexter liked this post and
is so discouraging that it effectively commented: “Yes! This is true! What an
creates an “invidious chilling immoral thing to do?!” This post was likewise
effect,” thus impeding the exercise liked by 23
people. Juan Dela Cruz filed a case for online Section 4(c)(2) on Child Pornography, cannot
libel against Nestor, Dexter and 23 other stand scrutiny. (Ibid.)
people who liked the post using as his basis
Sec. 5 of the Cybercrime law which penalizes Freedom from subsequent punishment
any person who willfully abets or aids in the
commission of any of the offenses enumerated A limitation on the power of the State from
in the said law. Is this provision of the law imposing a punishment after publication or
constitutional? dissemination. Without this assurance, the
individual would hesitate to speak for fear that
A: NO. Section 5 with respect to Section 4(c)(4) is he might be held to account for his speech, or
unconstitutional. Its vagueness raises that he might be provoking the vengeance of
apprehension on the part of internet users the officials he may have criticized. (Nachura,
because of its obvious chilling effect on the Outline Reviewer in Political Law, p. 152)
freedom of expression, especially since the crime
of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the This second basic prohibition of the free
cyberspace front in a fuzzy way. What is more, as speech and press clause prohibits systems of
the petitioners point out, formal crimes such as subsequent punishment which have the effect
libel are not punishable unless consummated. In of unduly curtailing expression.
the absence of legislation tracing the interaction
of netizens and their level of responsibility such NOTE: Freedom from subsequent punishment
as in other countries, Section 5, in relation to is not absolute; it may be properly regulated in
Section 4(c)(4) on Libel, Section 4(c)(3) on the interest of the public. The State may
Unsolicited Commercial Communications, and validly impose penal and/or administrative
sanctions such as in the following:
function. (Pita v. CA, G.R. No. 80806, October 5,
1. Libel – A public and malicious imputation of a 1989)
crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or any 3. Criticism of Official Conduct – In New York
act omission, status tending to cause Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, March 9, 1964,
dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural the constitutional guarantee requires a
or judicial person, or blacken the memory of federal rule that prohibits a public official
one who is dead. (Art 353, Revised Penal from recovering damages for a defamatory
Code) falsehood relating to his official conduct
2. Obscenity – In Pita v. Court of Appeals, the unless he proves that the statement was
Supreme Court declared that the made with actual malice.
determination of what is obscene is a judicial 4. Rights of students to free speech in school
premises not absolute – The school cannot
suspend or expel a student solely on the basis
of the articles he has written except when
such article materially disrupts class work or
involves substantial disorder or invasion of
rights of others. (Miriam College Foundation
v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000)
Doctrine of Fair Comment
GR: Every discreditable public imputation is false

because every man is presumed innocent, thus,
every false imputation is deemed malicious,
hence, actionable.
XPN: When the discreditable imputation is

directed against a public person in his public
capacity, such is not necessarily actionable.
NOTE: For it to be actionable, it must be shown

that either there is a false allegation of fact or
comment based on a false supposition.
XPN to the XPN: If the comment is an

expression of opinion, based on
established facts; it is immaterial
whether the opinion happens to be
mistaken, as long as it might reasonably
be inferred from facts. (Borjal v. CA, G.R.
No. 126466, January 14, 1999)
Freedom of the Press
The guaranty of freedom to speak is useless

without the ability to communicate and
disseminate what is said. And where there is a
need to reach a large audience, the need to access
the means and media for such dissemination
becomes critical. This is where the press and
broadcast media come along.
In the ultimate analysis, when the press is

silenced, or otherwise muffled in its undertaking
of acting as a sounding board, the people
ultimately would be the victims. (GMA Network v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 205357, September 2, 2014)
Malaya newspaper regarding alleged bribery
Q: A national daily newspaper carried an

exclusive report stating that Senator Bal Bass
received a house and lot located at YY Street,
Makati, in consideration for his vote to cut
cigarette taxes by 50%. The Senator sued the
newspaper, its reporter, editor and publisher
for libel, claiming the report was completely
false and malicious. According to the Senator,
there is no YY Street in Makati, and the tax cut
was only 20%. He claimed one million pesos
in damages. The defendants denied "actual
malice," claiming privileged communication
and absolute freedom of the press to report
on public officials and matters of public
concern. If there was any error, the
newspaper said it would publish the
correction promptly. Are the defendants liable
for damages?
A: NO. Since Senator Bal Bass is a public person

and the questioned imputation is directed against
him in his public capacity, in this case actual
malice means the statement was made with
knowledge that it was false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not. Since
there is no proof that the report was published
with knowledge that it is false or with reckless
disregard of whether it was false or not, the
defendants are not liable for damages. (Borjal v.
CA, G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999)
The Borjal doctrine is not applicable in a case

where the allegations against a public official
were false and no effort was exerted to verify
the information before publishing his articles.
Types of Privileged Communications
1. Absolutely Privileged –those which are not

actionable even if the actor acted in bad faith
e.g.: Art. VI, Sec 11, of the 1987

Constitution, which exempts a
member of Congress from liability of
any speech or debate in the Congress
or in any Committee thereof.
2. Qualifiedly Privileged - defamatory imputations

are not actionable unless found to have been
made without good intention or justifiable
motive. To this genre belong “private
communications” and “fair and true report
without any comments or remarks.” (Borjal v. CA,
G.R. No. 126466, January 14, 1999)
Q: Wincy Diez penned several articles in

incidents in the Supreme Court Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr.
and characterizing the justices as Amado P. Macasaet, A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, August
“thieves” and “a basket of rotten 8, 2008)
apples.” The Court En Banc
required Wincy to explain why FACIAL CHALLENGE AND THE OVERBREADTH
no sanction should be imposed DOCTRINE
on her for indirect contempt of
court. Did the order of the Court CONTENT- CONTENT-BASED
violate freedom of the press? NEUTRAL RESTRAINT
REGULATION
A: NO. While freedom of speech, of Merely concerned The restriction is based
expression and of the press are at with the incidents of on the subject matter
the core of civil liberties and have the speech, or one of the utterance or
to be protected at all costs for the that merely controls speech. The cast of the
sake of democracy, these freedoms the time, place or restriction determines
are not absolute. For, if left manner, and under the test by which the
unbridled, they have the tendency well-defined challenged act is
to be abused and can translate to standards. assailed with.
licenses, which could lead to No presumption of There is presumption
disorder and anarchy. Erika unconstitutionality. of unconstitutionality.
crossed the line, as hers are
baseless scurrilous attacks which NOTE: The burden of
demonstrate nothing but an abuse proof to overcome the
of press freedom. They leave no presumption of
redeeming value in furtherance of unconstitutionality is
freedom of the press. They do with the government.
nothing but damage the integrity of Test to be used: Test to be used: Clear
the High Court, undermine the faith Intermediate and Present Danger.
and confidence of the people in the Approach.
judiciary, and threaten the doctrine
of judicial independence. (In Re:
Facial Challenge (2015 Bar)
A challenge to a statute in court, in which the

plaintiff alleges that the legislation is always, and
under all circumstances, unconstitutional, and
CONTENT-BASED AND CONTENT-NEUTRAL
REGULATIONS
therefore void. FACIAL CHALLENGE “AS-APPLIED”
CHALLENGE
Facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague An examination of Considers
statute and to one which is overbroad because of the entire law, only extant facts
possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. pinpointing its flaws affecting real litigants
The theory is that “[w]hen statutes regulate or and defects, not only
proscribe speech and no readily apparent on the basis of its
construction suggests itself as a vehicle for actual operation to
rehabilitating the statutes in a single prosecution, the parties, but also
the transcendent value to all society of on the assumption or
constitutionally protected expression is deemed prediction that its
to justify allowing attacks on overly broad very existence may
statutes with no requirement that the person cause others not
making the attack demonstrate that his own before the court to
conduct could not be regulated by a statute refrain from
drawn narrow specifity.” (Estrada v. constitutionally
Sandiganbayan GR. 148560, November 19, 2001) protected speech or
activities.
Facial Challenge vs. “As-applied” Challenge (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network,
Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552,
October 5, 2010)
Q: Is facial challenge to a penal statute NOTE: A litigant cannot thus successfully mount a
allowed? facial challenge against a criminal statute on
either vagueness or overbreadth grounds.
A: NO. Facial challenges are not allowed in penal
statutes. Criminal statutes have general in The rule established in our jurisdiction is, only
terrorem effect resulting from their very statutes on free speech, religious freedom, and
existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for other fundamental rights may be facially
this reason alone, the State may well be challenged. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement
prevented from enacting laws against socially Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No.
harmful conduct. In the area of criminal law, the 178552, October 5, 2010)
law cannot take chances as in the area of free
speech. (KMU v. Ermita, G.R. No. 17855, October 5, Overbreadth Doctrine (2010, 2014 Bar)
2010)
The overbreadth doctrine decrees that a
governmental purpose to control or prevent
activities constitutionally subject to state
regulations may not be achieved by means which
sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade
the area of protected freedoms. (Southern
Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-
Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552, October 5,
2010)
NOTE: The application of the overbreadth

doctrine is limited to a facial kind of challenge
and, owing to the given rationale of a facial
challenge, applicable only to free speech cases.
The most distinctive feature of the overbreadth

technique is that it marks an exception to some of
the usual rules of constitutional litigation.
Ordinarily, a particular litigant claims that a
statute is unconstitutional as applied to him or
her; if the litigant prevails, the courts carve away
the unconstitutional aspects of the law by
invalidating its improper applications on a case to
case basis. Moreover, challengers to a law are not
permitted to raise the rights of the third parties
and can only assert their own interests. In
overbreadth analysis, those rules give way;
challenges are permitted to raise the rights of
third parties; and the court invalidates the entire
statute “on its face,” not merely “as applied for” so
that the overbroad law becomes unenforceable
until a properly authorized court construes it
more narrowly. The factor that motivates court to
depart from the normal adjudicatory rules is the
concern with the “chilling,” deterrent effect of the
overbroad statute on third parties not courageous
enough to bring suit. The Court assumes that an
overbroad law’s “very existence may cause others
not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or expression.”
An overbreadth ruling is designed to remove that
deterrent effect on the speech of those third
parties. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement
Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No.
178552, October 5, 2010)
NOTE: In his dissenting opinion, Justice Carpio
DANGEROUS TENDENCY, BALANCING OF cited Action for Children's Television v. FCC
INTERESTS, AND CLEAR AND PRESENT which establishes the safe harbor period to be
DANGER TESTS from 10:00 in the evening to 6:00 in the morning,
when the number of children in the audience is at
Dangerous Tendency Test a minimum. In effect, between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the broadcasting of material
Question: Whether the speech restrained has a considered indecent is permitted. Between the
rational tendency to create the danger hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., the broadcast
apprehended, be it far or remote, thus of any indecent material may be sanctioned.
government restriction would then be allowed. It Clear and Present Danger Test (2014 Bar)
is not necessary though that evil is actually
created for mere tendency towards the evil is The government must also show the type of harm
enough. the speech sought to be restrained would bring
about— especially the gravity and the imminence
Emphasis: Nature of the circumstances under of the threatened harm – otherwise the prior
which the speech is uttered, though the speech restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on speech
per se may not be dangerous. based on its content cannot be justified by
hypothetical fears, “but only by showing a
Balancing of interest Test substantive and imminent evil that has taken the
life of a reality already on ground.” As formulated,
Question: Which of the two conflicting interests “the question in every case is whether the words
(not involving national security crimes) demands used are used in such circumstances and are of
the greater protection under the particular such a nature as to create a clear and present
circumstances presented: danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to
a. When particular conduct is regulated in the prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.”
interest of public order The regulation which restricts the speech content
b. And the regulation results in an indirect, must also serve an important or substantial
conditional and partial abridgement of speech. government interest, which is unrelated to the
(Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, suppression of free expression. (Chavez v.
1969) Gonzales, G.R. No. 168338, February 15, 2008)
Q: Can an offensive and obscene language The question in every case is whether the words
uttered in a prime-time television broadcast used are used in such circumstances and are of
which was easily accessible to the children be such a nature as to create a clear and present
reasonably curtailed and validly restrained? danger that they will bring about the substantive
evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
A: YES. In Soriano v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 165636, (Schenck
April 29, 2009, the Court, applying the balancing v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, March 3, 1919)
of interest doctrine, ruled that the government’s
interest to protect and promote the interests and NOTE: The test can be applied with regard to the
welfare of the children adequately buttresses the Freedom of Religion when what is involved is
reasonable curtailment and valid restraint on religious speech as this is often used in cases of
petitioner’s prayer to continue as program host freedom of expression.
of Ang Dating Daan during the suspension period.
Soriano’s offensive and obscene language uttered STATE REGULATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF
on prime-time television broadcast, without MASS MEDIA
doubt, was easily accessible to the children. His
statements could have exposed children to a TYPES OF MASS MEDIA
language that is unacceptable in everyday use. As
such, the welfare of children and the State’s Live Media Coverage of Court Proceedings
mandate to protect and care for them, as parens
patriae, constitute a substantial and compelling The propriety of granting or denying permission
government interest in regulating Soriano’s to the media to broadcast, record, or photograph
utterances in TV broadcast. court proceedings involves weighing the
constitutional guarantees of freedom of the
press, the right of the public to information and adverse public opinion which live media
the right to public trial, on the one hand, and on
the other hand, the due process rights of the
defendant and the inherent and constitutional
power of the courts to control their proceedings
in order to permit the fair and impartial
administration of justice. Collaterally, it also
raises issues in the nature of media, particularly
television and its role in society, and of the impact
of new technologies on law.
Considering the prejudice it poses to the

defendant's right to due process as well as to the
fair and orderly administration of justice and
considering further that the freedom of the press
and the right of the people to information may be
served and satisfied by less distracting, degrading
and prejudicial means, live radio and television
coverage of court proceedings shall not be
allowed. Video footages of court hearings for
news purposes shall be restricted and limited to
shots of the courtroom, the judicial officers, the
parties and their counsel taken prior to the
commencement of official proceedings. No video
shots or photographs shall be permitted during
the trial proper.
An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a

right that belongs to him, more than anyone else,
where his life or liberty can be held critically in
balance. A public trial aims to ensure that he is
fairly dealt with and would not be unjustly
condemned and that his rights are not
compromised in secret conclaves of long ago. A
public trial is not synonymous with publicized
trial; it only implies that the court doors must be
open to those who wish to come, sit in the
available seats, conduct themselves with proper
decorum and observe the trial process (Secretary
of Justice v. Estrada, A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC,
September 13, 2001).
Q: In 2011, the Supreme Court promulgated a

Resolution partially granting pro hac vice the
request for live broadcast by television and
radio of the trial court proceedings of the
“Maguindanao massacre” cases, subject to
specific guidelines set forth in said Resolution.
Accused Andal Ampatuan, Jr. filed a Motion for
Reconsideration alleging that the Resolution
“deprives him of his rights to due process,
equal protection, presumption of innocence,
and to be shielded from degrading
psychological punishment.” Ampatuan
contends that the Court should accord more
vigilance because the immense publicity and
coverage can produce would affect everyone, rights of the accused. To be in the best position to
including the judge, witnesses, and the families weigh the conflicting testimonies of the
of all concerned parties. The OSG, however, witnesses, the judge must not be affected by any
contends that the coverage by live media neither outside force or influence. Like any human being,
constitutes a barbarous act nor inflicts upon the however, a judge is not immune from the
accused inhuman physical harm or torture that is pervasive effects of media.
shocking to the conscience and is freedom of the
press. Should live broadcast of the trial be In a constitutional sense, public trial is not
disallowed? synonymous with publicized trial. The right to a
public trial belongs to the accused. The
A: NO. The Court is now disallowing live media requirement of a public trial is satisfied by the
broadcast of the trial of “Maguindanao massacre” opportunity of the public and press to attend the
cases but is still allowing the filming of the trial and to report what they have observed. The
proceedings for (1) the real-time transmission to accused’s right to a public trial should not be
specified viewing areas, and (2) documentation. confused with the freedom of the press and the
public’s right to know as a justification for
While the Court recognizes the freedom of press and allowing the live broadcast of the trial (Notice of
the right to public information, the constitutional Resolution, In Re: Petition for Radio and TV
rights of the accused provide more than ample Coverage of cases against Zaldy Ampatuan, A.M.
justification to take a second look at the view that a No. 10-11-5-SC, October 23, 2012).
camera that broadcasts the proceedings live on
television has no place in a criminal trial because of Q: Can an offensive and obscene language
its prejudicial effects on the rights of accused uttered in a prime-time television broadcast
individuals. As we have previously held, the live which was easily accessible to the children be
coverage of judicial proceedings involve an inherent reasonably curtailed and validly restrained?
denial of due process. In this case that has achieved
notoriety and sensational status, a greater degree of A: YES. In Soriano v. MTRCB, G.R. No. 165636,
care is required to safeguard the constitutional April 29, 2009, the Court, applying the balancing
of interest doctrine, ruled that the government’s
interest to protect and promote the interests and

welfare of the children adequately buttresses the Commercial speech is a separate category of speech which is
reasonable curtailment and valid restraint on not accorded the same level of protection as that given to other
petitioner’s prayer to continue as program host constitutionally guaranteed forms of expression but is
of Ang Dating Daan during the suspension period. nonetheless entitled to protection. The State cannot rob him of
Soriano’s offensive and obscene language uttered this right without violating the constitutionally guaranteed
on prime-time television broadcast, without freedom of expression. Unsolicited advertisements are
doubt, was easily accessible to the children. His legitimate forms of expression. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice,
statements could have exposed children to a G.R. No. 203335, February 18, 2014)
language that is unacceptable in everyday use. As
such, the welfare of children and the State’s It pertains to communication which “no more than proposes a
mandate to protect and care for them, as parens commercial transaction,” such as Advertisements of goods or of
patriae, constitute a substantial and compelling services.
government interest in regulating Soriano’s
utterances in TV broadcast. To enjoy protection, commercial speech:
NOTE: In his dissenting opinion, Justice Carpio 1. Must not be false or misleading; and (Friedman v.
cited Action for Children's Television v. FCC Rogers, 440 US 1, February 21, 1979)
which establishes the safe harbor period to be 2. Should not propose an illegal transaction. (Pittsburgh
from 10:00 in the evening to 6:00 in the morning, Press Co. v Human Relations Commissions, 413 US 376,
when the number of children in the audience is at June 21, 1973)
a minimum. In effect, between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m., the broadcasting of material NOTE: However, even truthful and lawful commercial speech
considered indecent is permitted. Between the maybe regulated if:
hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., the broadcast
of any indecent material may be sanctioned.
COMMERCIAL SPEECH
1. Government has a months old or beyond, and forbids the use of
substantial interest to health and nutritional claims. Were the
protect; labeling requirements and advertising
2. The regulation directly regulations under the RIRR valid?
advances that interest;
and A: YES. Sec. 13 on “total effect” and Sec. 26 of Rule
3. It is not more than VII of the RIRR contain some labeling
extensive than is requirements, specifically: a) that there be a
necessary to protect that statement that there is no substitute to
interest. (Central Hudson breastmilk; and b) that there be a statement that
Gas & Electric Corp v. powdered infant formula may contain pathogenic
Public Service Commission microorganisms and must be prepared and used
of NY, 447 US 557, June 20, appropriately. Sec. 16 of the RIRR prohibits all
1980) health and nutrition claims for products within
the scope of the Milk Code, such as claims of
Q: EO 51 (Milk Code) was issued increased emotional and intellectual abilities of
by President Val Anton is on the infant and young child. These provisions of
October 28, 1986 by virtue of the the Milk Code expressly forbid information that
legislative powers granted to the would imply or create a belief that there is any
President under the Freedom milk product equivalent to breast milk or which is
Constitution. On May 15, 2006, humanized or maternalized, as such information
the DOH issued Revised would be inconsistent with the superiority of
Implementing Rules and breastfeeding. Thus, the RIRR is a reasonable
Regulations (RIRR) which was to means of enforcing the Milk Code and deterring
take effect on July 7, 2006. The circumvention of the protection and promotion of
Association of Healthcare breastfeeding as embodied in the Milk Code.
Workers claimed that the Milk (Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of
Code only regulates and does not the Philippines v. Duque, G.R. No. 173034, October
impose unreasonable 9, 2007)
requirements for advertising and
promotion while RIRR imposes Heckler’s Veto (2014 Bar)
an absolute ban on such activities
for breast milk substitutes Occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of
intended for infants from 0- 24 speech is curtailed or restricted by the
government in order to prevent a reacting party's UNPROTECTED SPEECH

behavior. The term Heckler’s Veto was coined by
University of Chicago professor of law Harry Unprotected speech or low value expression
Kalven. refers to libelous statements, obscenity or
pornography, false or misleading
The “heckler's veto” involves situations in which advertisement, insulting or fighting words.
the government attempts to ban protected speech Those by which their very utterance inflicts
because it might provoke a violent response. In injury or tent to incite an immediate breach of
such situations, “the mere possibility of a violent peace and expression endangering nation
reaction to protected speech is simply not a security. (Soriano v. Laguardia, G.R. 164785,
constitutional basis on which to restrict the right March 15, 2010)
to speak”. (Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, January
22, 2008) Limitations on freedom of expression
(2014 Bar)
It may be in the guise of a permit requirement in
the holding of rallies, parades, or demonstrations It should be exercised within the bounds of
conditioned on the payment of a fee computed on laws enacted for the promotion of social
the basis of the cost needed to keep order in view interests and the protection of other equally
of the expected opposition by persons holding important individual rights such as:
contrary views. (Gorospe, 2006, citing Forsyth 1. Laws against obscenity, libel and slander
County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, June (contrary to public policy);
19, 1992) 2. Right to privacy of an individual;
3. Right of state/government to be
protected from seditious attacks;
4. Legislative immunities;
5. Fraudulent matters; A profession of faith to an active power that binds
6. Advocacy of imminent lawless conducts; and elevates man to his creator. (Aglipay v. Ruiz,
7. Fighting words; and G.R. No. L-45459, March 13, 1937)
8. Guarantee implies only the right to reach a
willing audience but not the right to compel Guarantees contained in Sec. 5 Art. III of the
others to listen, see or read. 1987 Constitution (1996, 1997, 1998, 2003,
2009, 2012 Bar)
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Non-establishment clause; and
2. Free exercise clause.
NON-ESTABLISHMENT AND FREE EXERCISE

CLAUSES
Non-Establishment Clause
Art. III, Sec. 5 states that “No law shall be made

respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
NOTE: The non-establishment clause means that

the state should adopt a “position of neutrality”
when it comes to religious matters. (Political Law
Reviewer, Suarez, p. 252 citing CJ Fernando, 2011)
The non-establishment clause bars the State from
establishing, through laws, rules, and moral.
Purpose of non-establishment clause:
1. Protects voluntarism; and

2.Insulation of political process from interfaith
dissension.
NOTE: Voluntarism, as a social value, means that

the growth of a religious sect as a social force
must come from the voluntary support of its
members because of the belief that both spiritual
and secular society will benefit if religions are
allowed to compete on their own intrinsic merit
without benefit of official patronage. (Bernas, S.J.,
2011)
Accommodation
Accommodations are government policies that

take religion specifically into account not to
promote the governments favored form of
religion, but to allow individuals and groups to
exercise their religion without hindrance. Their
purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden
on, or facilitate the exercise of, a persons or
institutions religion. (Estrada v Escritur, AM P-02-
1651, August 4, 2003)
Examples of governmental accommodation

Religion
1. In Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union, constitutional provision "does not inhibit the use of public
the Court upheld the exemption of members of property for religious purposes when the
Iglesia ni Cristo from the coverage of a closed
shop agreement between their employer and a
union, because it would violate the teaching of
their church not to affiliate with a labor
organization.
2. In Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of
Schools of Cebu, the petitioners, who were
members of the Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to
salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and
recite the patriotic pledge for it is their belief that
those were acts of worship or religious devotion,
which they could not conscientiously give to
anyone or anything except God.
3. In Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the
Different Courts in Iligan City (Re: Office Hours),
the Court recognized that the observance of
Ramadan as integral to the Islamic faith
and allowed Muslim employees in the Judiciary to
hold flexible office hours from 7:30 o'clock in the
morning to 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon without
any break during the period.
 The Revised Administrative Code of 1987

has declared Maundy Thursday, Good
Friday, and Christmas Day as regular
holidays.
 Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9177 proclaimed
the FIRST Day of Shawwal, the tenth
month of the Islamic Calendar, a national
holiday for the observance
of EidulFitr (the end of Ramadan).
 R.A. No. 9849 declared the tenth day
of Zhu/ Hijja, the twelfth month of the
Islamic Calendar, a national holiday for
the observance of EidulAdha.
 Presidential Decree No. 1083, otherwise
known as the Code of Muslim Personal
Laws of the Philippines, expressly allows
a Filipino Muslim to have more than one
(1) wife and exempts him from the crime
of bigamy punishable under Revised
Penal Code (RPC). The same Code allows
Muslims to have divorce.
Constitutional provisions which express the

non-establishment clause
1. Art. VI, Sec. 29 “No public money/property

given to religious sect or minister/religious
personnel” (except for those assigned to army,
penal institution, government orphanage and
leprosarium).
It has also been held that the aforecited

religious character of such use is public elementary and high schools);
merely incidental to a temporary
use which is available NOTE: Religious instruction in public schools:
indiscriminately to the public in a. At the option of parents/guardians
general". (Re: Letter of Tony Q. expressed in writing;
Valenciano, Holding of Religious b. Within the regular class hours by
Rituals at the Hall of Justice Building instructors designated or
in Quezon City, A.M. No. 10-4-19-SC, approved by religious authorities
March 7, 2017) of the religion to which the
children belong; and
2. Art. II, Sec. 6 “Separation of c. Without additional costs to the
church and state is inviolable.” government
3. Art. IX(C), Sec. 2(5 ) “No religious
sects can be registered as political 4. Art. 14, Sec. 4 (2) (citizenship
parties.” requirement of ownership of educational
institutions, except those established by
Constitutionally created religious groups and mission boards);
exceptions to the non- and
establishment clause
5. Art. 6, Sec. 29 (2) (appropriation allowed
1. Art. 6, Sec.29 (prohibition where ecclesiastic is employed in armed
on appropriation of public forces, in a penal institution, or in a
money or property for the government-owned orphanage or
use, benefit or support of leprosarium.)
any religion);
2. Art. 6, Sec. 28(3) Exceptions to the non-establishment clause as
(exemption from taxation held by jurisprudence
of properties actually,
directly and exclusively 1. Government sponsorship of town
used for religious fiestas, some purely religious traditions
purposes); have now been considered as having
3. Art. 14, Sect. 3(3) (optional acquired secular character; (Garces v.
religious instruction in Estenzo, G.R. No. L-53487, May 25, 1981)
2. Postage stamps depicting Philippines as or force him to profess a belief or

the venue of a significant religious disbelief in any religion;
event 4. Punish a person for entertaining or
– benefit to the religious sect involved professing religious beliefs or
was merely incidental as the promotion disbeliefs, for church attendance or
of Philippines as a tourist destination non- attendance;
was the primary objective; and (Aglipay 5. Collect tax in any amount, can be
v. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-45459 March 13, levied to support any religious
1937) activity or institution whatever they
3. Exemption from zoning requirements may adopt to teach or practice
to accommodate unique architectural religion;
features of religious buildings i.e. 6. Openly or secretly participate in the
Mormon’s tall pointed steeple. (Martin affairs of any religious organization
v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, or group or vice versa. (Everson v
434 Mass. 141, May 16, 2001) Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1.,
February 10, 1947)
The non-establishment clause states that the
State CANNOT: Free Exercise Clause
1. Set up a church; The Free Exercise Clause affords absolute

2. Pass laws which aid one, all religions or protection to individual religious convictions.
prefer one over another; However, the government is able to regulate
3. Force or influence a person to go to or the times, places, and manner of its exercise.
stay away from church against his will (Cantwell
v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, May 20, 1940)
or deny the immortality of his soul – in fact,
Aspects of freedom and enjoyment of religious cherish any religious conviction as he and he
profession and worship alone sees fit.
1. Right to believe, which is absolute; and However absurd his beliefs may be to others,
even if they be hostile and heretical to the
The individual is free to believe (or majority, he has full freedom to believe as he
disbelieve) as he pleases concerning the pleases. He may not be required to prove his
hereafter. He may indulge his own theories beliefs. He may not be punished for his
about life and death; worship any god he inability to do so. (Iglesiani Cristo v. CA, G.R.
chooses, or none at all; embrace or reject any No. 119673, July 26, 1996)
religion; acknowledge the divinity of God or
of any being that appeals to his reverence; 2. Right to act on one’s belief, which is subject to
recognize regulation.
Where the individual externalizes his beliefs in

acts or omissions that affect the public, his
freedom to do so becomes subject to the
authority of the State. As great as this liberty
may be, religious freedom, like all the other
rights guaranteed in the Constitution, it is
limited and subject to the police power of the
State and can be enjoyed only with proper
regard to rights of others.
BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY AND

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS
Benevolent Neutrality
Benevolent neutrality is an approach that looks

further than the secular purposes of government
action and examines the effect of these actions on
religious exercise. Benevolent neutrality
recognizes the religious nature of the Filipino
people and the elevating influence of religion in
society; at the same time, it acknowledges that
government must pursue its secular goals. In
pursuing these goals, however, government might
adopt laws or actions of general applicability
which inadvertently burden religious exercise.
Benevolent neutrality gives room for
accommodation of these religious exercises as
required by the Free Exercise Clause. It allows
these breaches in the wall of separation to uphold
religious liberty, which after all is the integral
purpose of the religion clauses. (Estrada v.
Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003)
Conscientious Objector
An "individual who has claimed the right to

refuse to perform military service on the
grounds of freedom of thought, conscience,
and/or religion.” (International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, Art. 18)
Requisites for one to be considered a June 22, 2006)
conscientious objector
1. The person is opposed to war in any

form;
2. He must show that this opposition is
based upon religious training and
belief; and
3. And he must show that this objection is
sincere. (Clay v. United States, 403
U.S.698, June 28, 1971)
Q: Angel, a court interpreter, is living with a

man not her husband. Ben filed an
administrative case against Angel as he
believes that she is committing an immoral act
that tarnishes the image of the court, thus she
should not be allowed to remain employed
therein as it might appear that the court
condones her act. Angel admitted that she has
been living with a man without the benefit of
marriage for twenty years and that they have
a son. But as a member of the religious sect
known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Watch
Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal
arrangement is in conformity with their
religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of
living together, she executed on July 28, 1991
a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness.”
Should Angel’s right to religious freedom
carve out an exception from the prevailing
jurisprudence on illicit relations for which
government employees are held
administratively liable?
A: YES. Angel’s conjugal arrangement cannot be

penalized as she has made out a case for
exemption from the law based on her
fundamental right to freedom of religion. The
Court recognizes that the State’s interests must be
upheld in order that freedom – including religious
freedom – may be enjoyed. In the area of religious
exercise as a preferred freedom, however, man
stands accountable to an authority higher than
the State, and so the State interest sought to be
upheld must be so compelling that its violation
will erode the very fabric of the State that will
also protect the freedom. In the absence of
showing that such State interest exists, man must
be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.
Furthermore, our Constitution adheres to the
Benevolent Neutrality approach that gives room
for accommodation of religious exercises as
required by the Free Exercise Clause. The
benevolent neutrality doctrine allows
accommodation of morality based on religion,
provided it does not offend compelling state
interests. (Estrada v. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651,
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
At bottom, what our non- establishment clause
Q: Ang Ladlad is an organization calls for is government neutrality in religious
composed of men and women matters. Clearly, governmental reliance on
who identify themselves as religious justification is inconsistent with this
lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or policy of neutrality. (Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G.R.
transgendered individuals No. 190582, April 8, 2010)
(LGBTs). Ang Ladlad applied for
registration with the COMELEC to NOTE: When the law speaks of immoral or,
participate in the party-list necessarily, disgraceful conduct, it pertains to
elections. The COMELEC public and secular morality; it refers to those
dismissed the petition on moral conducts which are proscribed because they are
grounds, stating that definition detrimental to conditions upon which depend the
of sexual orientation of the LGBT existence and progress of human society. (Leus v.
sector makes it crystal clear that St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, G.R. No.
petitioner tolerates immorality 187226, January 28, 2015)
which offends religious beliefs
based on the Bible and the Q: Dychie, Rose Anne, Julie, Kimmy, Alarice
Koran. Ang Ladlad argued that and Krizelle were minor school children and
the denial of registration, insofar member of the sect, Jehovah’s Witnesses. They
as it justified the exclusion by were expelled from their classes by various
using religious dogma, violated public school authorities for refusing to salute
the constitutional guarantees the flag, sing the national anthem and recite
against the establishment of the “Panatang Makabayan” required by R.A.
religion. Is this argument 1265. According to them, the basic
correct? assumption in their universal refusal to salute
the flags of the countries in which they are
A: YES. It was a grave violation of found is that such a salute constitutes an act of
the non- establishment clause for religious devotion forbidden by God's law and
the COMELEC to utilize the Bible that their freedom of religion is grossly
and the Koran to justify the violated. On the other hand, the public
exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Our authorities claimed that the freedom of
Constitution provides in Art. III, religious belief guaranteed by the
Sec. 5 that “no law shall be made Constitution does not mean exception from
respecting an establishment of
non-discriminatory laws like the saluting of expulsion. The expulsion of the students by
flag and the singing of the national anthem. To reason of their religious beliefs is also a
allow otherwise would violation of a citizen’s right to free education.
disrupt school discipline and demoralize the The non- observance of the flag ceremony
teachings of civic consciousness and duties of does not totally constitute ignorance of
citizenship. Is the expulsion justified? patriotism and civic consciousness. Love for
country and admiration for national heroes,
A: NO. Religious freedom is a fundamental right civic consciousness, and form of government
of highest priority. The two-fold aspect of right to are part of the school curricula. Therefore,
religious worship is: 1.) Freedom to believe which expulsion due to religious beliefs is
is an absolute act within the realm of thought. 2.) unjustified. (Ebralinag v. Division
Freedom to act on one’s belief regulated and Superintedent of Cebu, G.R. No. 95770, March
translated to external acts. The only limitation to 1, 1993)
religious freedom is the existence of grave
and present danger to public safety, morals, LEMON AND COMPELLING STATE
health and interests where State has right to INTEREST
prevent. The expulsion of the petitioners from the
school is not justified. Lemon Test
In the case at bar, the students expelled are only
standing quietly during ceremonies. By observing A test to determine whether an act of the
the ceremonies quietly, it doesn’t present any government violates the non-establishment
danger so evil and imminent to justify their clause.
To pass the Lemon test, a government act or
policy must: 1. Has the statute or government action
created a burden on the free exercise of
1. Have a secular purpose; religion? – Courts often look into the
2. Not promote or favor any set of religious sincerity of the religious belief, but
beliefs or religion generally; and without inquiring into the truth of the
3. Not get the government too closely belief since the free exercise clause
involved (“entangled”) with religion. prohibits inquiring about its truth;
(Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, June 2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state
28, 1971) interest to justify this infringement of
religious liberty? – In this step, the
Compelling State Interest government has to establish that its
Used to determine if the interests of the State are purposes are legitimate for the State
compelling enough to justify infringement of and that they are compelling; and
religious freedom. It involves a three-step 3. Has the State in achieving its legitimate
process: purposes used the least intrusive means
possible so that the free exercise is not
infringed any more than necessary to
achieve the legitimate goal of the State?
– The analysis requires the State to
show that the means in which it is
achieving its legitimate State objective
is the least intrusive means, or it has
chosen a way to achieve its legitimate
State end that imposes as little as
possible intrusion on religious beliefs.
Doctrine of Separation of Church and the State
Q: What is a purely ecclesiastical affair to

which the State cannot meddle?
A: An ecclesiastical affair is “one that concerns

doctrine, creed, or form of worship of the church,
or the adoption and enforcement within a
religious association of needful laws and
regulations for the government of the
membership, and the power of excluding from
such associations those deemed not worthy of
membership.” Based on this definition, an
ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship
between the church and its members and relate
to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship
and governance of the congregation. To be
concrete, examples of this so-called ecclesiastical
affairs to which the State cannot meddle are
proceedings for excommunication, ordinations of
religious ministers, administration of sacraments
and other activities with attached religious
significance. (Pastor Dionisio V. Austria v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 124382, Aug. 16, 1999, 1st Div. [Kapunan])
Q: Petitioner is a religious minister of the

Seventh Day Adventist (SDA). He was
dismissed because of alleged
misappropriation of denominational funds,
willful breach of trust, serious misconduct,
gross and habitual neglect of duties and
commission of an offense against the person
of his employer’s duly authorized Examples:
representative. He filed an illegal termination 1. Persons in the danger zone areas (e.g.
case against the SDA before the labor arbiter. Mt. Pinatubo, Taal Volcano) may be
The SDA filed a motion to dismiss invoking the relocated to safer areas and
doctrine of separation of Church and State. evacuation centers in case of danger
Should the motion be granted? and emergency to save lives and
property.
A: NO. Where what is involved is the relationship 2. Insane persons who roam around in
of the church as an employer and the minister as Roxas Boulevard may be committed
an employee and has no relation whatsoever with by the government to the National
the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the Mental Hospital for appropriate
church, i.e., the minister was not excommunicated treatment and medical attention.
or expelled from the membership of the
congregation but was terminated from NOTE: Under Art. III, Sec. 6, of the Constitution, a
employment, it is a purely secular affair. lawful order of the court is required before the
Consequently, the suit may not be dismissed liberty of abode and of changing the same can be
invoking the doctrine of separation of church and impaired.
the state. (Pastor Dionisio V. Austria v. NLRC, G.R.
No. 124382, Aug. 16, 1999) Q: Paz, was employed by the Far Eastern
Employment Bureau, owned by Jocelyn. An
Growth of a religious sect as a social force must advanced payment has already been given to
come from the voluntary support of its members Paz by the employment agency, for her to
because of the belief that both spiritual and work as a maid. However, Paz wanted to
secular society will benefit if religions are allowed transfer to another residence, which was
to compete on their own intrinsic merit without disallowed by the employment agency.
benefit of official patronage. (Bernas, S.J., 2011) Further she was detained and her liberty was
restrained. The employment agency wanted
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL that the advance payment, which was applied
to her transportation expense from the
Rights guaranteed under Sec. 6 of the Bill of province should be paid by Paz before she
Rights (1991, 1996, 1998, 2012 Bar) could be allowed to leave. Does the
employment agency has the right to restrain
1. Freedom to choose and change one’s and detain a maid who could not return the
place of abode; and advance payment it gave?
2. Freedom to travel within the country and
outside. A: NO. An employment agency, regardless of the
amount it may advance to a prospective
Liberty of abode employee or maid, has absolutely no power to
curtail her freedom of movement. The fact that no
It is the right of a person to have his home or to physical force has been exerted to keep her in the
maintain or change his home, dwelling, residence house of the respondent does not make less real
or habitation in whatever place he has chosen, the deprivation of her personal freedom of
within the limits prescribed by law. movement, freedom to transfer from one place to
another, freedom to choose one’s residence.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS Freedom may be lost due to external moral
compulsion, to founded or groundless fear, to
The right is NOT absolute, as there may be a law erroneous belief in the existence of an imaginary
that restricts the freedom , as when the person is power of an impostor to cause harm if not blindly
a leper or a convict. obeyed, to any other psychological element that
may curtail the mental faculty of choice or the
The liberty of abode may be impaired only: unhampered exercise of the will. If the actual
effect of such psychological spell is to place a
a. Upon lawful order of the court and; and person at the mercy of another, the victim is
b. Within the limits prescribed by law such entitled to the protection of courts of justice as
as public safety and security. much as the individual who is illegally deprived of
liberty by duress or physical coercion. (Cuanca v
Salazar, 82 Phil. 851, January 1, 1941)
Department Order No. 1 is a valid
implementation of the Labor
Right to Travel
This refers to the right of a person to go where he

pleases without interference from anyone.
The limitations on the right to travel
a. Interest of national security;

b. Public safety; and
c. Public health.
NOTE: It is settled that only a court may issue a

hold departure order against an individual
addressed to the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation. However, administrative authorities,
such as passport-officers, may likewise curtail
such right in the interest of national security,
public safety, or public health, as may be provided
by law.
DPWH may validly ban certain vehicles on

expressways in consideration of
constitutional provisions of right to travel.
The right to travel does not mean the right to

choose any vehicle in traversing a toll way. The
right to travel refers to the right to move from
one place to another. Travelers can traverse the
toll way any time they choose using private or
public four-wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not
denied the right to move from Point A to Point B
along the toll way. Anyone is free to access the
toll way, much as the rest of the public can. The
mode by which one wishes to travel pertains to
the manner of using the toll way, a subject that
can be validly limited by regulation. (Mirasol v.
DPWH, G.R. No. 158793, June 8, 2006)
Q: PASEI is engaged in the recruitment of

Filipino workers, male and female, for
overseas employment. It challenged the
validity of Department Order 1 of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
because it suspends the deployment of female
domestic and household workers in Iraq,
Jordan and Qatar due to growing incidence of
physical and personal abuses to female
overseas workers. PASEI contends that it
impairs the constitutional right to travel. Is
the contention correct?
A: NO. The deployment ban does not impair the

right to travel. The right to travel is subject,
among other things, to the requirements of
"public safety," "as may be provided by law."
Code, in particular, its basic policy to "afford Yet again, military life calls for considerable
protection to labor," pursuant to the Department of personal sacrifices during the period of
Labor's rule-making authority vested in it by the conscription, wherein the higher duty is not to
Labor Code. The petitioner assumes that it is self but to country. (Gudani v. Senga, G.R. No.
unreasonable simply because of its impact on the 170165, August 15, 2006)
right to travel, but as we have stated, the right itself
is not absolute. The disputed Order is a valid WATCH-LIST AND HOLD DEPARTURE ORDERS
qualification thereto. (Philippine Association of
Service Exporters, Inc. v. Drilon, G.R. No. 81958, June NOTE: Right to travel is not impaired by a hold
30, 1988) departure order. The basic reason for the rule is
found in People v Uy Tuising, 61 Phil. 404, 1935,
A member of the military cannot travel freely to where it was said that inasmuch as the
other places apart from his command post jurisdiction of the courts from which orders and
processes were issued does not extend beyond
Mobility of travel is another necessary restriction on that of the Philippines, they would have no
members of the military. A soldier cannot leave binding force outside of said jurisdiction.
his/her post without the consent of the commanding
officer. The reasons are self-evident. The Q: Several criminal complaints were filed
commanding officer has to be aware at all times of against former President Gloria Macapagal
the location of the troops under command, so as to Arroyo (GMA) before the DOJ. In view thereof,
be able to appropriately respond to any exigencies. DOJ Sec. De Lima issued Watchlist Orders
For the same reason, commanding officers have to be (WLO) pursuant to her authority under DOJ
able to restrict the movement or travel of their Circular No. 41 which was issued pursuant to
soldiers, if in their judgment, their presence at place the rule-making powers of the DOJ in order to
of call of duty is necessary. At times, this may lead to keep individuals under preliminary
unsentimental, painful consequences, such as a investigation within the jurisdiction of the
soldier being denied permission to witness the birth Philippines. Subsequently, GMA requested for
of his first-born, or to attend the funeral of a parent. the issuance of Allow Departure Orders (ADO)
so that she may be able to seek medical grants the DOJ the power to investigate the commission of
attention abroad. Before the resolution of her crimes and prosecute offenders. It does not carry the power to
application for ADO, GMA filed a petition with indiscriminately devise all means it deems proper in
prayer for the issuance of a TRO seeking to performing its functions without regard to constitutionally-
annul and set aside DOJ Circular No. 41 and protected rights.
WLOs issued against her for being
unconstitutional. A TRO was issued but GMA DOJ cannot justify the restraint in the liberty of movement
was prevented from leaving the country. Is imposed by the circular on the ground that it is necessary to
DOJ Circular No. 41 unconstitutional for being ensure presence and attendance in the preliminary
a violation of the right to travel? investigation of the complaints. There is no authority of law
granting it the power to compel the attendance of the subjects
A: YES. The DOJ has no authority to issue DOJ of a preliminary investigation pursuant to its investigatory
Circular No. 41 which effectively restricts the powers. Its investigatory power is simply inquisitorial and,
right to travel through the issuance of WLOs and unfortunately, not broad enough to embrace the imposition of
HDOs (Hold Departure Orders). There are only restraint on the liberty of movement. (Genuino v. De Lima, G.R.
three considerations that may permit a restriction No. 197930, April 17, 2018)
on the right to travel: national security, public
safety or public health. Further, there must be an Q: President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 475
explicit provision of statutory law or Rules of formally declaring a state of calamity in Boracay and
Court providing for the impairment. ordering its closure for six (6) months. On account of this,
Boracay residents Mark Anthony Zabal and Thiting
DOJ Circular No. 41 is not a law. It is not a Jacosalem filed the present petition alleging that they
legislative enactment, but a mere administrative would suffer grave and irreparable damage as their
issuance designed to carry out the provisions of livelihood depends on the tourist activities therein. They
an enabling law. DOJ is not authorized to issue
WLOs and HDOs to restrict the constitutional
right to travel. There is no mention of the
exigencies stated in the Constitution that will
justify the impairment. The provision simply
attacked the order on the ground period of time or merely temporary. (Zabal v.
that it violates the right to travel. Duterte, G.R. No. 238467, February 12, 2019)
Are they correct?
Return to one’s country
A: NO. This case does not actually
involve the right to travel in its Q: Ferdinand Marcos, in his deathbed, has
essential sense. Any bearing that signified his desire to return to the
Proclamation No. 475 may have on Philippines to die. But President Corazon
the right to travel is merely Aquino barred the return of Marcos and his
corollary to the closure of Boracay family. The Marcoses invoke their right to
and the ban of tourists and non- return. Is the right to return a constitutionally
residents therefrom which were protected right?
necessary incidents of the island's
rehabilitation. There is certainly no A: NO. The right to return to one’s country is not
showing that Proclamation No. 475 among the rights specifically guaranteed in the
deliberately meant to impair the Bill of Rights, which treats only of the liberty of
right to travel. The questioned abode and the right to travel. Nevertheless, the
proclamation is clearly focused on right to return may be considered as a generally
its purpose of rehabilitating accepted principle of International law, and under
Boracay and any intention to the Constitution, is part of the law of the land.
directly restrict the right cannot, in However, it is distinct and separate from the right
any manner, be deduced from its to travel and enjoys a different protection under
import. the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Also significant to note is that the RIGHT TO INFORMATION

closure of Boracay was only Rights. (Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211,
temporary considering the September 15, 1989 & October 27, 1989)
categorical pronouncement that it
was only for a definite period of six
months. Hence, if at all, the impact Rationale
of Proclamation No. 475 on the
right to travel is not direct but The purpose is to promote transparency in
merely consequential; and, the policy- making and in the operations of the
same is only for a reasonably short government, as well as provide the people
sufficient
information to exercise effectively other COMELEC Chair Bautista for breach of

constitutional rights. Armed with the right contract (MOA) in disallowing the former
information, citizens can participate in public to stream online the coverage of the 2016
discussions leading to the formulation of presidential and vice-presidential debates.
government policies and their effective Does Rappler, Inc. have a cause of action
implementation. An informed citizenry is against Chair Bautista?
essential to the existence and proper functioning
of any democracy. (IDEALs v. PSALM, G.R. No. A: YES. Aside from the fact that Chair Bautista
192088, October 9, 2012) clearly breached an express stipulation of the
MOA allowing Rappler, Inc. to stream online
Three categories of information: the coverage of the debates, the presidential
and vice- presidential debates are held
1. Official records; primarily for the benefit of the electorate to
2. Documents and papers pertaining to official assist the electorate in making informed
acts, transactions and decisions; and choices on election day. Through the conduct
3. Government research data used in of the national debates among presidential
formulating policies. (Article 3, Section 7, and vice-presidential candidates, the
1987 Constitution) electorate will have the "opportunity to be
informed of the candidates' qualifications and
Electoral Debates track record, platforms and programs, and
their answers to significant issues of national
Q: The online news agency Rappler, Inc. sued concern." The political nature of the national
debates and the public's interest in the wide
availability of the information for the voters'
education certainly justify allowing the debates to The right does not extend to the following:
be shown or streamed in other websites for wider
dissemination. (Rappler, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 1. National security matters. These include
222702, April 5, 2016) state secrets regarding military,
diplomatic and other national security,
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS and information on inter-government
exchanges prior to the conclusion of
treaties and executive agreements.
GR: The access must be for a lawful purpose and 2. Criminal matters relating to investigation,
is subject to reasonable conditions by the apprehension, and detention of criminals
custodian of the records. which the court may not inquire into
prior to arrest, prosecution and
XPNs: detention;
3. Trade and industrial secrets and other
banking transactions as protected by the
Intellectual Property Code and the
Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act; and
4. Other confidential information falling
under the scope of the Ethical Safety Act
concerning classified information.
(Chavez v. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716,
December 9, 1998)
Q: Adolfo, filed in his capacity as a citizen and

as a stakeholder in the industry involved in
importing petrochemicals, filed a mandamus
petition to compel the Committee on Tariff
and Related Matters (CTRM) to provide him a
copy of the minutes of its May 23, 2005
meeting; as well as to provide copies of all
official records, documents, papers and
government research data used as basis for
the issuance of Executive Order No. 486 which
lifted the suspension of the tariff reduction
schedule on petrochemicals. Wilfredo based
his action on the constitutional right to
information on matters of public concern and
the State’s policy of full public disclosure. Will
the petition prosper?
A: NO. The State’s policy of full public disclosure

is restricted to transactions involving public
interest and is tempered by reasonable
conditions prescribed by law.
Two requisites must concur before the right to

information may be compelled by writ of
mandamus. Firstly, the information sought must
be in relation to matters of public concern or
public interest. And, secondly, it must not be
exempt by law from the operation of the
constitutional guarantee.
The information sought by Wilfredo are classified

as a closed-door Cabinet meeting by virtue of the
CTRM’s composition and the nature of its
mandate dealing with matters of foreign affairs, trade and
policy-making. A President and those who assist and guidelines.

him must be free to explore alternatives in the
process of shaping policies and making decisions
and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to
express except privately. Without doubt,
therefore, ensuring and promoting the free
exchange of ideas among the members of CTRM
tasked to give tariff recommendations to the
President were truly imperative. (Sereno v.
Committee on Tariff and Related Matters of the
NEDA, G.R. No. 175210, February 1, 2016)
PUBLICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Rationale for Publication of Laws
There is a need for publication of laws to

reinforce the right to information. In Tañada v.
Tuvera, the Court said that Laws must come out in
the open in the clear light of the sun instead of
skulking in the shadows with their dark, deep
secrets. Mysterious pronouncements and
rumored rules cannot be recognized as binding
unless their existence and contents are confirmed
by a valid publication intended to make full
disclosure and give proper notice to the people.
Publication of regulations
Publication is necessary to apprise the public of

the contents of penal regulations and make the
said penalties binding on the persons affected
thereby. (Pesigan v. Angeles, G.R. No. L-6427, April
30, 1984)
Publication is required in the following:
1. All statutes, including those of local

application, and private laws;
2. President decrees and executive orders
promulgated by the President;
3. Administrative rules and regulations if their
purpose is to enforce and implement existing
law; and
4. Memorandum Circulars, if they are meant
note merely to interpret but to “fill in the
details” which that body is supposed to
enforce.
Publication is NOT required in the following:
1. Interpretative regulations and those

merely internal in nature, regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency; and
2. Letters of instructions issued by
administrative superiors concerning rules
Applicability of the provision
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Impairment of contracts NOTE: It is NOT absolute and is NOT to be read
with literal exactness. It is restricted to contracts
Any law which introduces a change with respect to property or some object of value
into the express terms of the and which confer rights that may be asserted in a
contract, or its legal construction, or court of justice; it has no application to statutes
its validity, or its discharge, or the relating to public subjects within the domain of
remedy for its enforcement, impairs the general legislative powers of the State and
the contract. involving the public rights and public welfare of
the entire community affected by it.
The law impairs the obligation of contracts if:
This constitutional provision is applicable ONLY if
1. It changes the terms and the obligation of contract is impaired by
conditions of a legal contract legislative act (statute, ordinance, etc.). The act
either as to the time or mode of need not be by a legislative office; but it should be
performance; or legislative in nature. Furthermore, the
2. It imposes new conditions or impairment must be substantial. (Philippine Rural
dispenses with those expressed Electric Cooperatives Assoc. v. DILG Secretary, G.R.
if it authorizes for its No. 143076, June 10, 2003)
satisfaction something different
from that provided in its terms. Inapplicability of the provision
NOTE: Mere technical change which One, in case of franchises, privileges, licenses, etc.
does not change the substance of
the contract, and which still leaves NOTE: These are subject to amendment,
an efficacious remedy for alteration or repeal by Congress when the
enforcement does NOT impair the common good so requires.
obligation of contracts. A valid
exercise of police power is superior Two, there is neither public interest involved nor
to obligation of contracts. a law that supports the claim.
prevail. A later law which enlarges, abridges,
or in any manner changes the intent of the
NOTE: It can only be invoked if it is against the parties to the contract necessarily impairs the
government or when the government intervenes contract itself and cannot be given retroactive
in contract between the parties. (Pacific Wide effect without violating the constitutional
Realty and Development Corp. v. Puerto Azul Land, prohibition against impairment of contracts.
Inc., G.R. No. 180893, November 25, 2009) (Sangalang v. IAC, G.R. No. 71169, December
22, 1988)
NOTE: The non-impairment clause always yields
to the police power of the state–and even to the XPN: Enactment of laws pursuant to the
power of taxation and eminent domain–for as exercise of police power because public
long as the subject matter of the contract is welfare prevails over private rights. It is
imbued with paramount public interest. Into deemed embedded in every contract a
every contract is deemed written the police reservation of the State’s exercise of police
power of the State. Also, the police power may not power, eminent domain and taxation, so long
be bargained away through the medium of a as it deals with a matter affecting the public
contract, or even that of a treaty. welfare. (PNB v. Remigio, G.R. No. 78508,
March 21, 1994)
Mutuality of contracts
Q: While still being a GOCC, PAL entered
GR: Valid contracts should be respected by the into a Commercial Agreement and Joint
legislature and not tampered with by subsequent Services Agreement with Kuwait Airways
laws that will change the intention of the parties in 1981 establishing a joint commercial
or modify their rights and obligations. arrangement whereby PAL and Kuwait
Airways were to jointly operate the Manila-
NOTE: The will of the parties to a contract must Kuwait (and vice versa) route, utilizing the
planes and services of Kuwait Airways. In that
Agreement, PAL may collect royalties from CMU terminates the agreement concerning
Kuwait Airways. Subsequently, the the royalties effective April 12, 1995.
government lost control over PAL and became However, PAL insists that the agreement
a private corporation. After 14 years, could only be effectively terminated on 31
delegations from the Philippine government October 1995, or the last day of the then
and Kuwait government met. The talks current traffic period and therefore the
culminated in a Confidential Memorandum of provisions of the agreement shall continue to
Understanding (CMU). The be enforced until such date. Can the execution
of the CMU between Kuwait and Philippine
Governments automatically terminate the
Commercial Agreement?
A: NO. An act of the Philippine Government

negating the commercial agreement between the
two airlines would infringe the vested rights of a
private individual. Since PAL was already under
private ownership at the time the CMU was
entered into, the Court cannot presume that any
and all commitments made by the Philippine
Government are unilaterally binding on the
carrier even if this comes at the expense of
diplomatic embarrassment. Even granting that
the police power of the State may be exercised to
impair the vested rights of privately-owned
airlines, the deprivation of property still requires
due process of law. (Kuwait Airline Corporation v.
PAL, G.R. No. 156087, May 8, 2009)
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND ADEQUATE

LEGAL ASSISTANCE
Basis
Free access to courts and quasi-judicial bodies

and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied
to any person by reason of poverty. (Sec. 11, Art.
3, 1987 Constitution) (1991, 2002 Bar)
Right to free access to courts
This right is the basis for Sec. 17, Rule 5 of the New
Rules of Court allowing litigation in forma pauper
is. Those protected include low paid employees,
domestic servants and laborers. (Cabangis v.
Almeda Lopez, G.R. No. 47685, September 20, 1940)
Q: The Municipal Trial Court denied Jaypee’s

petition to litigate in forma pauperis on the
ground that Jaypee has regular employment
and sources of income thus cannot be
classified as poor or pauper. Is the court’s
order justified?
A: NO. They need not be persons so poor that

they must be supported at public expense. It
suffices that the plaintiff is indigent. And the
difference between paupers and indigent persons
is that the latter are persons who have no property or
sources of income sufficient for their support his sworn statement that he had no income. Under the standard
aside from their own labor though self- set forth inAcar v. Rosal as well as the recent legislations
supporting when able to work and in heretofore adverted to, it is the
employment. (Acar v. Rosal, G.R. No. L-21707,
March 18, 1967)
Q: The Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc. seeks

to be exempted from paying legal fees for its
indigent and underprivileged clients couching
their claim on the free access clause embodied
in Sec. 11, Art. III of the Constitution. Is the
contention tenable?
A: NO. The Court cannot grant exemption of

payment of legal fees to foundations/institutions
working for indigent and underprivileged people.
According to Sec. 19, Rule 141, Rules of Court,
only a natural party litigant may be regarded as
an indigent litigant that can be exempted from
payment of legal fees. Exemption cannot be
extended to the foundations even if they are
working for the indigent and underprivileged
people. (Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi Re:
exemption from legal and filing fees of the Good
Shepherd Foundation, Inc., A. M. No. 09-6-9-SC,
August 19, 2009)
Q: A pauper is known to have several parcels

of land but that for several years prior to the
filing of the complaint in the inferior court
said parcels of land had been divided and
partitioned amongst his children who had
since been in possession thereof and paying
the taxes thereon. Is he considered indigent?
May he apply for free legal assistance?
A. YES. Republic Act 6034 (An Act Providing

Transportation and Other Allowances for
Indigent Litigants), has defined the term
"indigent" to refer to a person "who has no visible
means of income or whose income is insufficient
for the subsistence of his family."
Even on the assumption that petitioner owns

property, he may still be an indigent considering
his sworn statement that he had no income.
Under the standard set forth in Acar v. Rosal as
well as the recent legislations heretofore
adverted to, it is the income of a litigant that is the
determinative factor. For, really, property may
have no income. It may even be a financial burden
whose income is insufficient for the subsistence
of his family."
Even on the assumption that petitioner owns

property, he may still be an indigent considering
income of a litigant that is the forms of detention;
determinative factor. For, really, 7. Right to have confessions or admissions
property may have no income. It obtained in violation of these rights
may even be a financial burden. considered inadmissible in evidence.
(Enaje v. Ramos, (Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, June 13,
G.R. No. L-22109, January 30, 1970) 1966) (2013 Bar)
MIRANDA/CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
These are the rights to which a RIGHTS
person under custodial
investigation is entitled. At this NOTE: Even if the person consents to answer
stage, the person is not yet an questions without the assistance of counsel, the
accused as there is yet no case filed moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the
against him. He is merely a suspect. investigation, the interrogation must cease until
an attorney is present.
The following are the rights of suspects:
The “Miranda Rights” are available to avoid
1. Right to remain silent; (2013 Bar) involuntary extrajudicial confession.
2. Right to competent and
independent counsel, The purpose of providing counsel to a person
preferably of his own choice; under custodial investigation is to curb the police-
3. Right to be reminded that if he state practice of extracting a confession that leads
cannot afford the services of appellant to make self-incriminating statements.
counsel, he would be provided (People v. Rapeza, G.R. No. 169431, April 3, 2007)
with one
4. Right to be informed of his rights; Availability
5. Right against torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation 1. During custodial investigation;
or any other means which As soon as the investigation ceases to be a
vitiate the free will; general inquiry unto an unsolved crime and
6. Right against secret detention direction is aimed upon a particular suspect,
places, solitary, as when the suspect who has been taken into
incommunicado, or similar police custody and to whom the police would
then direct interrogatory questions which purely mechanical act.

tend to elicit incriminating statements; or
(2014 Bar) In the case of Galman v. Pamaran, G.R. Nos.
2. Critical pre-trial stage. 71208- 09, August 30, 1985, it was held that the
constitutional safeguard is
R.A. 7438 - An Act Defining Certain Rights of applied notwithstanding
Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial that the person is not yet arrested or under
Investigation and the Duties of the Arresting, detention at the time. However, Fr. Bernas has
Detaining and Investigating Officers qualified this statement by saying that
jurisprudence under the 1987 Constitution
This is a special penal law enacted pursuant to has consistently held, following the stricter
Section 12, par. 4, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution. view, that the rights begin to be available only
when the person is already in custody. (People
The custodial investigation shall include the v. Ting Lan Uy, G.R. No. 157399, November 17,
practice of issuing an invitation to a person who 2005)
is under investigation in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed. (R.A. Furthermore, in the case of People v. Reyes,
7438, Sec. 2) G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009, the court held
that: “The mantle of protection afforded by the
NOTE: Rights during custodial investigation above-quoted provision covers the period
apply only against testimonial compulsion and from the time a person is taken into custody
not when the body of the accused is proposed to for the investigation of his possible
be examined (e.g. urine sample, photographs, participation in the commission of a crime
measurements, garments, shoes) which is a from the time he was singled out as a suspect
in the commission of the offense although not yet
in custody. of custodial investigation" (Ho Wai Pang v. People,
G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011)
Infraction of the rights of an accused during
custodial investigation or the so-called Miranda Unavailability of Miranda Rights
Rights render inadmissible only the extrajudicial
confession or admission made during such 1. During a police line-up, unless admissions or
investigation. "The admissibility of other confessions are being elicited from the
evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue suspect; (Gamboa v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-56291,
and is not otherwise excluded by law or rules, is June 27, 1988)
not affected even if obtained or taken in the 2. During administrative investigations;
course (Sebastian, Jr. v Garchitorena, G.R. No 114028,
October 18, 2000)
3. Confessions made by an accused at the time
he voluntarily surrendered to the police or
outside the context of a formal investigation;
(People v Baloloy, G.R. No 140740, April 12,
2002)
4. Statements made to a private person; and
(People v Tawat, G.R. No 62871, May 25, 1985)
5. Forensic investigation is not tantamount to
custodial investigation, therefore Miranda
rights is not applicable. (People v. Tranca, 235
SCRA 455, August 17, 1994)
Waiver
Rights that may be waived
1. Right to remain silent; and

2. Right to counsel.
Rights that may not be waived
The right of the accused to be given the Miranda

warnings.
Requisites for valid waiver
1. Made voluntarily, knowingly and

intelligently;
2. In writing; and
3. With the presence of counsel. (People v.
Galit, G.R. No. L-51770, March 20, 1985)
Admissibility as evidence of confessions given

to news reporters and/or media and
videotaped confessions
Confessions given in response to a question by

news reporters, not policemen, are admissible.
Where the suspect gave spontaneous answers to
a televised interview by several press reporters,
his answers are deemed to be voluntary and are
admissible.
Videotaped confessions are admissible, where it

is shown that the accused unburdened his guilt
willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of
the newsmen. Such confessions do not form part
of confessions in custodial investigations as it was
not given to policemen but to media in attempt to Once the primary source (the tree) is shown to
solicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
derivative evidence (the fruit) derived from it is
However, due to inherent danger of these also inadmissible.
videotaped confessions, they must be accepted
with extreme caution. They should be presumed NOTE: The rule is based on the principle that
involuntary, as there may be connivance between evidence illegally obtained by the State should
the police and media men. (People v. Endino, G.R. not be used to gain other evidence, because the
No. 133026, February 20, 2001) originally illegally obtained evidence taints all
evidence subsequently obtained.
NOTE: What the Constitution bars is the
compulsory disclosure of the incriminating facts Q: Mayor Tatum arrived and proceeded to the
or confessions. The rights under Sec. 12 are investigation room. Upon seeing the mayor,
guarantees to preclude the slightest use of appellant Flores approached him and
coercion by the State, and not to prevent the whispered a request to talk privately. The
suspect from freely and voluntarily telling the mayor led appellant to the office of the Chief of
truth. (People v. Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, Police and there, Flores broke down and said
1997) "Mayor, patawarin mo ako! I will tell you the
truth. I am the one who killed Villaroman."
Q: Constancio and Berry were charged with The mayor opened the door of the room to let
the crime of Rape with Homicide committed the public and media representatives witness
against “AAA”. During the trial, Amparo, a the confession. The mayor first asked for a
news reporter, testified that he personally lawyer to assist appellant but since no lawyer
interviewed Berry. Amparo declared that was available she ordered the proceedings
during his interview, Berry revealed what photographed and videotaped. In the
happened the night “AAA” was killed. Atty. presence of the mayor, the police,
Suarez testified that during the custodial representatives of the media and appellant's
investigation he advised Berry of his own wife and son, appellant confessed his
constitutional rights and the consequences of guilt. His confession was captured on
his statements. Berry then executed an videotape and covered by the media
extrajudicial confession which was embodied nationwide. Did such uncounseled confession
in a Sinumpaang Salaysay. However, at the violate the suspect’s constitutional rights?
trial, Berry attested that the Sinumpaang
Salaysay was false, and claimed that he was A: NO. A confession given to the mayor may be
threatened into signing the same. Is the admitted in evidence if such confession by the
confession admissible? suspect was given to the mayor as a confidant and
not as a law enforcement officer. In such a case,
A: YES. The Court believed that Berry’s the uncounseled confession did not violate the
confession is admissible because it was voluntary suspect’s constitutional rights. What the
executed with the assistance of a competent and constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of
independent counsel in the person of Atty. Suarez incriminating facts or confessions. The rights
following Section 12, Article III of the under Sec. 12 are guarantees to preclude the
Constitution. In default of proof that Atty. Suarez slightest use of coercion by the State and not to
was negligent in his duties, the Court held that the prevent the suspect from freely and voluntarily
custodial investigation of Berry was regularly telling the truth. (People v. Andan, G.R. No.
conducted. there was no ample proof to show that 116437, March 3, 1997)
Berry’s narration of events to Amparo was the
product of intimidation or coercion. Berry’s Q: Accused Antonio Lauga was charged and
extrajudicial confession to Amparo, a news convicted of the crime of rape of his thirteen-
reporter, is deemed voluntary and is admissible year old daughter, AAA. During the
in evidence as it was not made to the police proceedings, Juan Paulo Nepomuceno, a
authorities or to an investigating officer. (People bantaybayanin the barangay, testified that the
v. Constancio, G.R. No. 206226, April 4, 2016) accused confessed that he had in fact raped
AAA. The trial court found him guilty of the
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine crime of rape. Lauga contends that the
extrajudicial confession he made to
Nepomuceno is inadmissible in evidence as it
was made without assistance of counsel. Is his No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
contention tenable? offense without due process of law. [1987
Constitution, Sec. 14(1), Art. III]
A: YES. A barangay bantay bayan is considered a
public officer and any extrajudicial confession Requisites of criminal due process (NO-CPJ)
made to him without the assistance of counsel is
inadmissible in evidence as provided for under 1. Accused is heard by a Court of competent
Sec. 12, Art. III of the Constitution. (People v. jurisdiction;
Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010) 2. Accused is proceeded against under the
orderly Processes of law;
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 3. Accused is given Notice and Opportunity to
be heard;
1. Due process; 4. Judgment must be rendered after lawful
2. Be presumed innocent; hearing.
3. Be heard by himself and counsel;
4. Be informed of the nature and cause of the Right to appeal not a natural right
accusation against him;
5. A speedy, impartial and public trial; The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor
6. Meet the witnesses face to face; part of due process. It is a mere statutory right,
7. Have compulsory process to secure the but once given, denial constitutes violation of due
attendance of witnesses and production of process.
evidence on his behalf;
8. Against double jeopardy; and RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
9. Bail.
Right to speedy disposition of cases
Q: Go was charged with Other Deceits under
Art, 318 of the RPC. Upon arraignment, he This is a right that is available to all persons in all
pleaded not guilty. The prosecution's kinds of proceedings, whether criminal, civil, or
complaining witness, Li Ping, a frail old administrative, unlike the right to speedy trial
businessman from Laos, Cambodia, traveled which is available only to an accused in a criminal
from his home country back to the Philippines case and, therefore, only the accused may invoke
just to attend the hearing. However, trial dates such.
were subsequently postponed due to his
unavailability. Subsequently, the private The right to speedy disposition of cases is
prosecutor filed with the MeTC a Motion to different from the right to speedy trial to the
Take Oral Deposition of Li Ping, alleging that extent that the former applies to all cases,
he was being treated for lung infection at the whether judicial, quasi- judicial, or administrative
Cambodia Charity Hospital in Laos, Cambodia cases. (1987 Constitution,Art. III, Sec. 16);
and that, upon doctor's advice, he could not whereas, the latter applies to criminal cases
make the long travel to the Philippines by only[1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2)]
reason of ill health. Can Li Ping take his
deposition in Laos, Cambodia? Violation
A: NO. Nowhere in Sec. 15, Rule 119 of the Rules, The right to a speedy disposition of a case, like
specifically in criminal proceedings, permits the the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only
taking of deposition outside the Philippines when the proceedings are attended by vexatious,
whether the deponent is sick or not. The capricious, and oppressive delays; or when
conditional examination of a prosecution witness unjustified postponements of the trial are asked
cannot defeat the rights of the accused to public for and secured; or even without cause or
trial and confrontation of witnesses. (Harry Go justifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed
vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185527, to elapse without the party having his case tried.
July 18, 2012, PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE) (Roquero v. Chancellor of UP-Manila, G.R. No.
181851, March 9, 2010)
Criminal due process
In determining whether the accused has been
deprived of his right to a speedy disposition of the
case and to a speedy trial, four factors must be
considered: (a) length of delay; (b) the reason for they have observed. The accused’s right to a public trial should
the delay; (c) the defendant's assertion of his not be confused with the freedom of the
right; and (d) Prejudice to the defendant.
(Angelito Magno vs. People Philippines, G.R No.
230657, March 14, 2018, PER, J. PERLAS-
BERNABE)
Q: Luz Almeda, Schools Division

Superintendent of the DepEd, was being
charged of violation of R.A. 3019. However,
the preliminary investigation proceedings
took more than 11 long years to resolve due to
the repeated indorsement of the case between
the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman)
and the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
It is attributed to the Ombudsman’s failure to
realize that Almeda was not under the
jurisdiction of the OSP or the Sandiganbayan.
Almeda then prays for the dismissal of the
case against her, claiming that there was a
violation of her right to speedy trial. Is she
correct?
A: YES. The right includes within its

contemplation the periods before, during and
after trial, such as preliminary investigations and
fact- finding investigations conducted by the
Office of the Ombudsman. Further, this right
applies to all cases pending before all judicial,
quasi-judicial or administrative bodies and not
limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but
extends to all parties in all cases, be it civil or
administrative in nature. [Almeda v. Office of the
Ombudsman (Mindanao), G.R. No. 204267, July 25,
2016]
Right to public trial
GR:
1. Trial must be public in order to prevent
possible abuses which may be committed
against the accused; and
2. The attendance at the trial is open to
all, irrespective of their relationship to
the accused.
XPN: If the evidence to be adduced is “offensive

to decency or public morals,” the public may be
excluded. (Sec. 21, Rule 119 of the Rules of
Criminal Procedure)
Public trial is not synonymous with publicized

trial
The right to a public trial belongs to the accused.

The requirement of a public trial is satisfied by
the opportunity of the members of the public and
the press to attend the trial and to report what
press and the public’s right to know This constitutional privilege has been defined as a
as a justification for allowing the protection against testimonial compulsion, but
live broadcast of the trial. The this has since been extended to any evidence
tendency of a high profile case like “communicative in nature” acquired under
the subject case to generate undue circumstances of duress. (People v. Olvis, G.R. No.
publicity with its concomitant 71092, September 30, 1987)
undesirable effects weighs heavily
against broadcasting the trial. NOTE: What is prohibited is the use of physical or
Moreover, the fact that the accused moral compulsion to extort communication from
has legal remedies after the fact is the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which
of no moment, since the damage would not exist were it not for the actions
has been done and may be compelled from the witness–NOT the inclusion of
irreparable. It must be pointed out his body in evidence when it may be material. For
that the fundamental right to due instance, substance emitted from the body of the
process of the accused cannot be accused may be received as evidence in
afforded after the fact but must be prosecution for acts of lasciviousness. (US v. Tan
protected at the first instance. (In Teng, 23 Phil. 145, September 7, 1912).And
Re: Petition for Radio and Television morphine forced out of the mouth of the accused
Coverage of the Multiple Murder may also be used as evidence against him(US v.
Cases against Maguindanao Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735, August 3, 1917)
Governor Zaldy Ampatuan, A.M. No.
10-11-5-SC, October 23, 2012) Consequently, although accused-appellant insists
that hair samples was forcibly taken from him
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION and submitted to the NBI for forensic
examination, the hair samples may be admitted in
Basis evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the
use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence
No person shall be compelled to be a communicative of the nature acquired from the
witness against himself. (1987 accused under duress. (People v. Rondero, 320
Constitution,Sec. 17, Art. III) (1990, SCRA 333, 399-401, December. 9, 1999)
1992, 1998, 2006 Bar)
The right is available in:
1. Criminal cases; (Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160,

2. Civil cases; January 18, 2000).This may even be invoked
3. Administrative cases; during inquiries in aid of legislation in the
4. Impeachment; Congress, and even in impeachment
5. Other legislative investigations that proceedings. (Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon
possess a criminal or penal aspect. Committee, 203 SCRA 767, November 20, 1991)
NOTE: It does not apply to private investigations Incriminating question

done by private individual (BPI v. CASA,
GR.No.149454, May 28, 2004). When the privilege A question tends to incriminate when the
against self-incrimination is violated outside of answer of the accused or the witness would
court, say, by the police, then the testimony, as establish a fact which would be a necessary
already noted, is not admissible under the link in a chain of evidence to prove the
exclusionary rule. When the privilege is violated commission of a crime by the accused or the
by the court itself, that is, by the judge, the court is witness.
ousted of its jurisdiction, all its proceedings are
null and void, and it is as if no judgment has been NOTE: The privilege against self-incrimination
rendered (Chavez v. CA, G.R. No. L-29169, August is not self-executing or automatically
19, 1968). (Note: heading of the note says private operational. It must be claimed. It follows that
individuals but enumerated public authority the right may be waived, expressly, or
instead) impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the
appropriate time.
NOTE: This right may be invoked not only in
criminal cases, but even in administrative The privilege against self-incrimination can be
proceedings that partake of a criminal nature claimed only when the specific question,
incriminatory in character, is actually addressed
to the witness. It cannot be claimed at any other
time. It does not give a witness the right to ACCUSED ORDINARY WITNESS
disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before Can refuse to take the Cannot refuse to take
the court at the time appointed. (Rosete v. Lim, witness stand the witness stand; can
G.R. No. 136051, June 8, 2006) altogether by only refuse to answer
invoking the right specific questions
Right against self-incrimination of an against self- which would
accused incrimination. incriminate him in the
vs. Right against self-incrimination of a commission of an
witness offense.
NOTE: For, in reality, the purpose of calling an

accused as a witness for the People would be to
incriminate him. The rule positively intends to
avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman
procedure of compelling a person “to furnish the
missing evidence necessary for his conviction”.
(Chavez v. CA, G.R. L-29169, August 19, 1968)
RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of

punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction
or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.
Two kinds of double jeopardy
1. Double jeopardy for the same offense; (1st

sentence, Sec. 21 of Art. III); and
2. Double jeopardy for the same act. (2nd
sentence, Sec. 21 of Art. III); (People v.
Quijada, 259 SCRA 191, July 24, 1995)
Requisites
Legal jeopardy attaches only upon:
1. Valid complaint or information;

2. Filed before a competent court;
3. The arraignment of the accused;
4. To which he had pleaded; and
5. Defendant was previously acquitted or
convicted, or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
(Saldariega v. Panganiban, G.R. Nos. 211933 &
211960, April 15, 2015)
NOTE: Consent of the accused to the dismissal

cannot be implied or presumed; it must be
expressed as to have no doubt as to the accused’s
conformity. (Caes v. IAC, 179 SCRA 54, November
6,
1989)
To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy, the

following must be proven:
GMA contends that the decision has effectively barred the
consideration and granting of the motion for
1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to reconsideration of the State
the second;
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same
offense or the second offense includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged
in the first information, or is an attempt to
commit the same or is a frustration thereof.
Rationale
To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the

accused twice in jeopardy for being punished for
the crime of which he has already been absolved.
There is reason for this provision of the
Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of
the State is ranged against the accused. If there is
no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for
the same offense after he has been acquitted, the
infinite power and capacity of the State for a
sustained and repeated litigation would
eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of
resources, stamina, and the will to fight. (Lejano
v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, December
14,
2010)
Grant of demurrer to evidence operates as an

acquittal
The general rule that the grant of a demurrer to

evidence operates as an acquittal and is, thus,
final and unappealable, to wit:
The demurrer to evidence in criminal cases, such

as the one at bar, is "filed after the prosecution
had rested its case," and when the same is
granted, it calls "for an 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." Such dismissal of a criminal case by
the grant of demurrer to evidence may not be
appealed, for to do so would be to place the
accused in double jeopardy. The verdict being one
of acquittal, the case ends there.
Q: Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

(GMA) filed a demurrer to evidence as a
defense in the criminal case filed against her.
The Supreme Court granted the said petition.
The Office of the Ombudsman moved for the
reconsideration of the decision. As a defense,
because doing so would amount Philippines, G.R. No. 220598, April 18, 2017)
to re- prosecution or revival of
the charge against her despite Related protections provided by the right
her acquittal, and would thereby against double jeopardy
violate the constitutional
prescription against double 1. Against a second prosecution for the same
jeopardy. Is the contention of offense after acquittal;
GMA tenable? 2. Against a second prosecution for the same
offense after conviction; and
A: YES. The general rule is that the 3. Against multiple punishments for the same
grant of a demurrer to evidence offense.
operates as an acquittal and is,
thus, final and unappealable. The Exceptions to the right against double
demurrer to evidence in criminal jeopardy
cases, such as the one at bar, is 1. When the trial court acted with grave abuse
''filed after the prosecution had of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
rested its case," and when the same jurisdiction; (Bangayan, Jr. v. Bangayan, G.R.
is granted, it calls "for an No. 172777, and De Asis Delfin v. Bangayan,
appreciation of the evidence G.R. No. 172792, October 19, 2011)
adduced by the prosecution and its 2. The accused was not acquitted nor was there
sufficiency to warrant conviction a valid and legal dismissal or termination of
beyond reasonable doubt, resulting the case;
in a dismissal of the case on the 3. Dismissal of the case was during the
merits, tantamount to an acquittal preliminary investigation;
of the accused." Such dismissal of a 4. It does not apply to administrative cases; and
criminal case by the grant of 5. Dismissal or termination of the case was with
demurrer to evidence may not be the express consent of the accused.
appealed, for to do so would be to
place the accused in double NOTE: When the dismissal is made at the
jeopardy. The verdict being one of instance of the accused, there is no double
acquittal, the case ends there. jeopardy. (People v. Quijada, 160 SCRA 516,
(Macapagal- Arroyo v. People of the July 24, 1996)
GR: Double jeopardy is not available when offense if a subsequent development

the case is dismissed other than on the merits changes the character of the first
or other than by acquittal or conviction upon indictment under which he may have
motion of the accused personally, or through already been charged or convicted.
counsel, since such dismissal is regarded as
with express consent of the accused, who is 8. The facts constituting the graver charge
therefore deemed to have waived the right to became known or were discovered only
plea double jeopardy. after a plea was entered in the former
complaint or information;
XPNs: 9. The plea of guilty to a lesser offense was
1. Dismissal based on insufficiency of made without the consent of the
evidence; (Saldariega v. Panganiban, G.R. prosecutor and of the offended party
Nos. 211933 & 211960, April 15, 2015) except as otherwise provided in Sec. 1(f)
2. Dismissal because of denial of accused’s of Rule 116.
right to speedy trial; and (Ibid.)
3. Accused is discharged to be a State Q: Hans, a writer in Q Magazine, published
witness. an article about Carlo’s illicit affairs with
other women. The magazine also happened
6. When the case was provisionally dismissed; to have a website where the same article
7. The graver offense developed due to was published. Carlo then filed a libel case
supervening facts arising from the same act against Hans both under the Revised Penal
or omission constituting the former charge; Code and the Cybercrime Law. Is there a
violation of the proscription against double
NOTE: Doctrine of Supervening Event - The jeopardy?
accused may still be prosecuted for another
A: YES. There should be no question that if the
published material on print, said to be libelous, is crime but is one already punished under the Art.
again posted online or vice versa, that identical 353. Sec. 4(c)(4) merely establishes the computer
material cannot be the subject of two separate system as another means of publication. Charging
libels. The two offenses, one, a violation of Art. the offender under both laws would be a blatant
353 of the Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of the proscription against double
violation of Sec. 4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve jeopardy. (Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No.
essentially the same elements and are in fact one 203335, February 11, 2014)
and the same offense. Online libel under Sec. 4(c)
(4) is not a new Q: Jet was convicted for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries. Can he
still be prosecuted for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property arising from the same incident?
A: NO. The doctrine that reckless imprudence

under Art. 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself
and not merely a means to commit other crimes
such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-
offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same
quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting
acts. Reason and precedent both coincide in that
once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be
prosecuted again for that same act. For the
essence of the quasi-offense of criminal
negligence under Art. 365 of the Revised Penal
Code lies in the execution of an imprudent or
negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the
negligent or careless act, not the result thereof.
The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty, it does not
qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the
careless act is single, whether the injurious result
should affect one person or several persons, the
offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the
same, and cannot be split into different crimes
and prosecutions. (Jason Ivler y Aguilar v. Hon.
Modesto-San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17,
2010)
A valid information is required in order for

the first jeopardy to attach
When accused policemen entered their pleas of

not guilty, and later arraigned anew by reason of
amendment of information, and consequently
convicted, they were not placed in double
jeopardy. The first requirement for jeopardy to
attach – that the information was valid – has not
been complied with. (Herrera v. Sandiganbayan,
G.R. Nos. 119660-61, February 13, 2009)
NOTE: When the first case was dismissed due to

insufficiency of evidence without giving the
prosecution the opportunity to present its
evidence, jeopardy has not yet attached. (People v.
Dumlao, G.R. No. 168918, March 2, 2009) The appeal of an accused operates as a waiver
of his right against double jeopardy
Q: After a long and protracted trial, the
accused involved in the murder of then When an accused appeals from the sentence of
Senator Aquino were acquitted by the the trial court, he waives the constitutional
Sandiganbayan. After the EDSA People Power safeguard against double jeopardy and throws
Revolution, a commission appointed by the whole case open to the review of the appellate
President Aquino recommended the re- court, which is then called upon to render such
opening of the Galman- Aquino murder case judgment as law and justice dictate, whether
after finding out that the then authoritarian favorable or unfavorable to the appellant." In
president Marcos ordered the Tanodbayan other words, when appellant appealed the RTC’s
and Sandiganabyan to rig the trial. Marcos judgment of conviction for murder, he is deemed
repudiated the findings of the very Fact to have abandoned his right to invoke the
Finding Board that he himself appointed to prohibition on double jeopardy since it became
investigate the assassination of Ninoy Aquino; the duty of the appellate court to correct errors as
he totally disregarded the Board's majority may be found in the appealed judgment. Thus,
and minority findings of fact and publicly appellant could not have been placed twice in
insisted that the military's "fall guy" Rolando jeopardy when the CA modified the ruling of the
Galman was the killer of Ninoy Aquino; the RTC by finding him guilty of robbery with
Sandiganbayan's decision in effect convicted homicide as charged in the Information instead of
Rolando Galman as Ninoy's assassin murder. (People v. Torres,
notwithstanding that he was not on trial but G.R. No. 189850, September 22, 2014)
the victim,and granted all 26 accused total
absolution notwithstanding the Fact Finding INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Board declaring the soldiers' version of
Galman being Aquino's killer a perjured story. Involuntary servitude
Will the rule on double jeopardy apply?
It is the condition where one is compelled by
A: NO. There was no double jeopardy. It is a force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against his
settled doctrine that double jeopardy cannot be will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or
invoked against this Court's setting aside of the not.
trial courts' judgment of dismissal or acquittal
where the prosecution which represents the GR: No involuntary servitude shall exist. (1993
sovereign people in criminal cases is denied due Bar)
process.The proceedings that took place before
was a sham and a mock trial which resulted in the XPNs: (P-S-E-C-O-M)
denial of the State’s right to due process. (Galman
v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1. Punishment for a crime for which the party
1986) has been duly convicted;
2. Personal military or civil service in the
Effect of order of a court which lacks interest of national defense;
jurisdiction 3. In naval enlistment, a person who enlists in
a merchant ship may be compelled to remain
Since the MTC did not have jurisdiction to take in service until the end of a voyage;
cognizance of the case pending this Court's 4. Posse comitatus or the conscription of able-
review of the RTC Order, its order of dismissal bodied men for the apprehension of
was a total nullity and did not produce any legal criminals;
effect. Thus, the dismissal neither terminated the 5. Return to work order issued by the DOLE
action on the merits, nor amounted to an Secretary or the President;
acquittal. The same can be said of the Order of 6. Minors under patria potestas are obliged to
Revival. Since both orders cannot be the source of obey their parents.
any right nor create any obligation, the dismissal
and the subsequent reinstatement of Criminal RIGHTS AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND
Case No. 89724 did not effectively place the CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS
petitioners in double jeopardy. (Quiambao v.
People, G.R. No. 185267, September 17, 2014) It has long been held that the prohibition of cruel
and unusual punishments is generally aimed at
the form or character of the in respect of duration or amount, and applies to
punishment rather than its severity punishments which public sentiment
has regarded as cruel or obsolete, for instance,

those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the A specific sum levied upon any person belonging
pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the to a certain class without regard to property or
wheel, disemboweling, and the like. Fine and occupation (e.g. community tax).
imprisonment would not thus be within the
prohibition. It takes more than merely being NOTE: A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation
harsh, excessive, out of proportion, or severe for a arising from law. Hence, its non-payment maybe
penalty to be obnoxious to the Constitution. validly punished with imprisonment. Only poll tax
is covered by the constitutional provision.
NOTE: The fact that the punishment authorized
by the statute is severe does not make it cruel and If an accused fails to pay the fines imposed upon
unusual. (Corpuz v. People, G.R. No. 180016, April him, this may result in his subsidiary
29, 2014) imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto
and not ex contractu.
NOTE: Mere extinguishment of life alone does not
constitute cruel, degrading, inhuman punishment. Generally, a debtor cannot be imprisoned for
To be such, it must involve prolonged agony and failure to pay his debt. However, if he contracted
suffering; it refers more to the nature of the his debt through fraud, he can be validly punished
punishment to be inflicted upon a convict, that in a criminal action as his responsibility arises not
which is shocking to the conscience of mankind from the contract of loan but from commission of
under contemporary standards. (Leo Echegaray v. a crime. (Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419,
Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 132601, October 12, December 18, 1986)
1998)
EX POST FACTO LAW AND
Cruel and Inhuman penalty BILL OF ATTAINDER
A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves An ex post facto law is any law that makes an
torture or lingering suffering (e.g. being drawn action, done before the passage of the law, and
and quartered). which was innocent when done, criminal, and
punishes such action. (United State v. Vicente Diaz
Degrading penalty Conde and Apolinaria R. De Conde, G.R. No. L-
18208, February 14, 1922) (1990 Bar)
A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to
public humiliation (e.g. being tarred and Kinds of ex post facto law
feathered, then paraded throughout town).
It can be a law that:
NOTE: The power to re-impose the death penalty 1. Makes an act, which was innocent when
for certain heinous crimes is vested in the done, criminal and punishes such action;
Congress; not in the President. After all, the 2. Aggravates a crime or makes it greater
power to define crimes and impose penalties is than when it was committed;
legislative in nature. 3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBTS annexed to the crime when it was
committed;
Basis 4. Alters the legal rules of evidence and
receives less or different testimony than
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non- the law required at the time of the
payment of a poll tax. (1987 Constitution, Sec. 20, commission of the offense in order to
Art. III) (1993, 1997, 2000, 2002 Bar) convict the defendant;
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and
Debt remedies only. In effect imposes penalty
or deprivation of a right for something
It is any civil obligation arising from contract. which when done was lawful; and
6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of
Poll tax some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection of a proclamation of amnesty. (Nuñez v.
former conviction or acquittal, or a
Sandiganbayan and People, G.R. Nos. L- Accordingly, if these Orders are to be considered the bases
50581-50617, January 30, 1982) of charging respondents
Characteristics of ex post facto law
The ex post facto law must:

1. Refer to criminal matters;
2. Be retroactive in its application; and
3. To the prejudice of the accused.
Q: On Oct. 8, 1992 President Ramos issued A.O.

No. 13 creating the Presidential AdHoc Fact-
Finding Committee on Behest Loans. The
Committee was tasked to inventory all behest
loans and determine the courses of action that
the government should take to recover these
loans.
By Memorandum Order No. 61 dated Nov. 9,

1992, the functions of the Committee were
expanded to include all non-performing loans
which shall embrace behest and non-behest
loans. Said Memorandum also named criteria
to be utilized as a frame of reference in
determining a behest loan.
Several loan accounts were referred to the

Committee for investigation, including the
loan transactions between PEMI and the DBP.
Consequently, Atty. Salvador, Consultant of

the Fact-Finding Committee, and representing
the PCGG, filed with the Ombudsman a sworn
complaint for violation of Sections 3(e) and
(g) of R.A. No. 3019 against the respondents
Mapa, Jr. et. al. The Ombudsman dismissed the
complaint on the ground of prescription.
According to the Ombudsman, the loans were

entered into by virtue of public documents
during the period of 1978 to 1981.Records
show that the complaint was referred and
filed with the Ombudsman on Oct. 4, 1996 or
after the lapse of more than fifteen years from
the violation of the law. Therefore, the
offenses charged had already prescribed.
The Presidential Ad Hoc Committee on Behest

Loans was created on Oct. 8, 1992 under
Administrative Order No. 13. Subsequently,
Memorandum Order No. 61, dated Nov. 9,
1992, was issued defining the criteria to be
utilized as a frame of reference in determining
behest loans.
for alleged offenses committed, Memorandum Order No. 61 merely provides a
they become ex-post facto laws frame of reference for determining behest loans.
which are proscribed by the Not being penal laws, Administrative Order No.
Constitution. The Committee 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 cannot be
filed a Motion for characterized as ex post facto laws. There is,
Reconsideration, but the therefore, no basis for the Ombudsman to rule
Ombudsman denied it on July 27, that the subject administrative and memorandum
1998. orders are ex post facto. (Salvador v. Mapa, Jr.,G.R.
No. 135080, November 28, 2007)
Are Administrative Order No. 13
and Memorandum Order No. 61 Bill of attainder
ex-post facto laws?
WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS, KALIKASAN,
A: NO. The constitutional doctrine HABEAS DATA, and AMPARO
that outlaws an ex post facto law
generally prohibits the It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment
retrospectivity of penal laws. Penal without trial, its essence being the substitution of
laws are those acts of the legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt.
legislature which prohibit certain (People v. Ferrer, G.R. Nos. L-32613-14, December
acts and establish penalties for 27, 1972)
their violations; or those that define
crimes, treat of their nature, and NOTE: It is only when a statute applies either to
provide for their punishment. The named individuals or easily ascertainable
subject administrative and members of a group in such a way as to inflict
memorandum orders clearly do not punishment on them without a judicial trial that it
come within the shadow of this becomes a bill of attainder.
definition. Administrative Order
No. 13 creates the Presidential Ad Two kinds of bill of attainder
Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans, and provides for its 1. Bill of attainder proper (legislative imposition
composition and functions. It does of the death penalty); and
not mete out penalty for the act of 2. Bill of pains and penalties (imposition of a
granting behest loans. lesser penalty.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS illegally detained (In the Matter of the Petition
for Habeas Corpus of Datukan Malang Salibo,
Ibid.).
It is an order from the court commanding a
detaining officer to inform the court: It may be availed of as a post-conviction
remedy or when there is an alleged violation
1. If he has the person in custody; and of the liberty of abode (Ibid.).
2. State his basis in detaining that person.
It may not be used as a means of obtaining
Privilege of the writ evidence on the whereabouts of a person, or
as a means of finding out who has specifically
It is that portion of the writ requiring the abducted or caused the disappearance of a
detaining officer to show cause why he should not certain person. When forcible taking and
be tested. It is the privilege that is suspended, not disappearance–not arrest and detention–have
the writ itself. The duration of the suspension been alleged, the proper remedy is not habeas
shall not exceed 60 days unless extended by the corpus proceedings, but criminal
Congress. investigation and proceedings. Habeas corpus
generally applies to all cases of illegal
When available confinement or detention by which any
person is deprived of his liberty or by which
For a person deprived of liberty due to mistaken the rightful custody of any person is withheld
identity. In such cases, the person is not under from the person entitled thereto (Martinez v.
any lawful process and is continuously being Mendoza, G.R. No. 153795, August 17, 2006).
If the detainee’s incarceration is by virtue of a The writ applies only to persons judicially
judicial order in relation to criminal cases charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or
subsequently filed against them, the remedy of directly connected with invasion and anyone
habeas corpus no longer lies (Ilagan v. Enrile, G.R. arrested or detained during suspension must be
No. 70748, October 21, 1985). charged within 3 days. Otherwise, he should be
released.
Requisites for the valid suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus WRIT OF KALIKASAN
1. There must be an actual invasion, This writ is a remedy available to any person
insurrection or rebellion; and whose constitutional right to a balanced and
2. Public safety requires the suspension. healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or private individual
or entity, involving environmental damage of
such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or
property of inhabitants in two or more cities or
provinces. (Rule 7, Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases)
Where to file the petition
a. The Supreme Court; or

b. Any station of the Court of Appeals.
NOTE: The rationale for this is that the

jurisdiction of both tribunals is national in scope
which corresponds with the magnitude of the
environmental damage contemplated by the
Rules.
Procedure for the issuance of a writ of

kalikasan
The petitioner shall file his application for a Writ

of Kalikasan with the proper tribunal as specified
in the preceding paragraph. The filing of a
petition for the writ does not preclude the filing
of separate civil, criminal, or administrative
actions.
Nature of the Writ of Kalikasan
The Writ of Kalikasan is an extraordinary remedy

which may be issued depending on the magnitude
of the environmental damage. The environmental
damage must be one which prejudices the life,
health, or property of inhabitants in two or more
cities or provinces, or that which transcends
political and territorial boundaries.
It is also a remedy which enforces the right to

information by compelling the government or a
private entity to produce information regarding
the environment that is within their custody.
Persons who may file a petition for a writ of

kalikasan
The Writ of Kalikasan may be availed of by any of adequately show that there exists a nexus between the right to
the following: privacy on one hand, and the right to
a. Natural or juridical persons;

b. Entities authorized by law; or
c. People’s organizations, non-governmental
organizations, or any public interest group
accredited by or registered with any
government agency.
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to

any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty
or security is violated or threatened by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
(Sec. 1, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data)
Any aggrieved party may file a petition for the

writ of habeas data. However, in cases of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances,
the petition may be filed by:
1. Any member of the immediate family of

the aggrieved party, namely: the spouse,
children and parents; or
2. Any ascendant, descendant or collateral
relative of the aggrieved party within the
fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, in default of those mentioned in
the preceding paragraph.
Q: Neri Ilagan and Joy Lee are common law

partners. Lee confronted Ilagan regarding a
purported sex video she discovered from a
camera involving Ilagan and another woman.
Ilagan denied the video and demanded Lee to
return the camera, but to no avail. During
their confrontation, Ilagan allegedly slammed
Lee’s head against a wall inside his office and
walked away. This prompted Lee to utilize
said video as evidence in filing various
complaints against Ilagan. Ilagan claimed that
such reproduction of the subject video
violated his and the woman’s right to life,
liberty, security, and privacy. Hence the lower
court issued a Writ of Habeas Data in favor of
Ilagan. Is the lower court correct in extending
the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Data to
Ilagan?
A: NO. A Petition for a Writ of Habeas Data must

life, liberty, or security on the other. 3. A general prayer for other reliefs that are just
As the rules and existing and equitable under the circumstances is also
jurisprudence on the matter evoke, allowed.
alleging and eventually proving the
nexus between one’s privacy right When Writ of Habeas Data is not applicable
to the cogent rights to life, liberty or
security are crucial in habeas data A writ of habeas data may not be issued to protect
cases, so much so that a failure on purely property and commercial concerns nor
either account certainly renders a when the grounds invoked in support of the
habeas data petition dismissible. In petitions therefore are vague or doubtful.
this case, Ilagan was not able to
sufficiently allege that his right to NOTE: It bears reiteration that like the writ of
life, liberty or security was or would amparo, habeas data was conceived as a
be violated through the supposed response, given the lack of effective and available
reproduction and threatened remedies, to address the extraordinary rise in the
dissemination of the subject sex number of killings and enforced disappearances.
video. (Dr. Lee vs. Psupt. Ilagan, GR Its intent is to address violations of or threats to
No. 203254, October 8, 2014, J. the rights to life, liberty or security as a remedy
PERLAS-BERNABE) independently from those provided under
prevailing rules. (Manila Electric Company v. Lim,
Reliefs available in the petition GR. No. 184769, October 5, 2010)
for issuance of writ of habeas
data Who May File a petition for the writ of habeas
data
1. Updating, rectification,
suppression, or destruction of Any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty
the database or information or or security is violated or threatened by an
files kept by the respondent; unlawful act or omission of a public official or
2. In case of threats of the employee, or of a private individual or entity
unlawful act, the relief may engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of
include a prayer for an order data or information regarding the person, family,
enjoining the act complained of; home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
and (The
Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data, A. M. No. 08-1-16- at P500 per sq.m., which was awarded to
SC, Sec. 1, January 22, 2008) FJI Property Developers, Inc. However, in
the Report of the Commission on Audit, it
However, in cases of extralegal killings and was found that the proper fair market
enforced disappearances, the petition may be value for said lot should have been P878.26
filed by: per sq. m. The COA Report, as a supplement
to such, concluded that the Municipality
a. Any member of the immediate family suffered undue injury when it was
of the aggrieved party, namely: the deprived of income. Hence, a Complaint
spouse, children and parents; or was filed against the members of the MAB.
b. Any ascendant, descendant or The Office of Ombudsman Luzon finds that
collateral relative of the aggrieved members of the MAB are guilty of Grave
party within the fourth civil degree of Misconduct. Are the members of the MAB
consanguinity or affinity, in default of administratively liable for Grave
those mentioned in the preceding Misconduct?
paragraph. (The Rule on the Writ of
Habeas Data, A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC,Sec. A: No. There is no substantial evidence to hold
2, January 22, 2008) respondents administratively liable for Grave
Misconduct. Substantial evidence is such
Q: The Municipal Appraisal Board (MAB) of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may
Kawit Cavite issued a Resolution decreasing accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In
the assessed fair market value of the subject cases before the Office of the Ombudsman,
lands from P700.00 per sq. m to P500.00 per jurisprudence instructs that “the fundamental
sq. m. Thereafter, a parcel of lot was auctioned rule in administrative proceedings is that the
complainant has the burden of proving, by
substantial evidence, the allegations in his Cement Corporation v. Mingson Mining Industries
complaint. In this case, records are bereft of any Corporation, G.R. No206728, November 12, 2014)
showing that respondents
WRIT OF AMPARO
wrongfully intended to transgress some
established and definite rule of action. The It is a remedy available to any person whose right
passage of MAB-Resolution was merely done, so to life, liberty and security is violated or
that lands within the municipality which have the threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
same attributes will be assessed uniformly. (Apo omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity. The writ shall cover
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances
or threats thereof. Its constitutional basis is found
on Art. VIII, Sec. 5 of the Constitution which states
that “The Supreme Court shall have the following
powers: xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, xxx. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts
of the same grade, and shall not diminish,
increase, or modify substantive rights. xxx
Petition for Writ of Amparo may be filed at any

justice of courts of the place where the threat, act
or omission was committed or any of its elements
occurred.
Applicability
Writ of Amparo does not apply to a child custody

case
When what is involved is the issue of child

custody and the exercise of parental rights over a
child, who, for all intents and purposes, has been
legally considered a ward of the State, the
Amparo rule cannot be properly applied. To
reiterate, the privilege of the writ of amparo is a
remedy available to victims of extra-judicial
killings and enforced disappearances or threats of
a similar nature, regardless of whether the
perpetrator of the unlawful act or omission is a
public official or employee or a private individual.
It is envisioned basically to protect and guarantee
the right to life, liberty and security of persons,
free from fears and threats that vitiate the quality
of life. (Yusay v. Segui, G.R. No. 193652, August 5,
2014)
Writ of Amparo does not cover the Constitutional

right to travel. (Reyes v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182161,
December 3, 2009)
Applicable even though petitioners already

escaped detention
In case were the victims of abduction were able to

escape, it should be stressed that they are now free
from captivity not because they were released by 9851 [now

virtue of a lawful order or voluntarily freed by R.A. No. 10353], we can readily discern that Ku’s circumstance
their abductors. Understandably, since their does not come under the statutory
escape, they have been under concealment and
protection by private citizens because of the
threat to their life, liberty, and security. The
threat vitiates their free will as they are forced to
limit their movements or activities. Precisely
because they are being shielded from the
perpetrators of their abduction, they cannot be
expected to show evidence of overt acts of threat
such as face-to-face intimidation or written
threats to their life, liberty and security.
Nonetheless, the circumstances of their
abduction, detention, torture, and escape
reasonably support a conclusion that there is an
apparent threat that they will again be abducted,
tortured, and this time, even executed. These
constitute threats to their liberty, security, and
life, actionable through a petition for a Writ of
Amparo. (Sec. of National Defense and AFP Chief of
Staff v. Manalo, G.R. No. 180906, October 7, 2008)
Extralegal killings
These pertain to killings committed without due

process of law, i.e., without legal safeguards or
judicial proceedings.
Enforced disappearance
Arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of

deprivation of liberty committed by agents of the
State or by persons or groups of persons acting
with the authorization, support or acquiescence
of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge
the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of
the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared
person, which places such person outside the
protection of the law. [R.A. 10353, Sec. 3(b)]
As clarified in Navia, with the enactment of R.A.

No. 9851 [now R.A. No. 10353], the Amparo Rule
is now a procedural law anchored, not only on the
constitutional rights to life, liberty and security,
but on a concrete statutory definition as well of
what an ‘enforced or involuntary disappearance’
is. Therefore, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC’s reference to
enforced disappearances should be construed to
mean the enforced or involuntary disappearance
of persons contemplated in Section 3(g) of R.A.
No. 9851 [now Sec. 3(b), R.A. 10353]. Meaning, in
probing enforced disappearance cases, courts
should read A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC in relation to
R.A. No. 9851[should now be read as R.A. No.
10353]. Guided by the parameters of R.A. No.
definition of an enforced or known member of the immediate family
involuntary disappearance. Indeed, or relative of the aggrieved party.
Ku was arrested by agents of the BI,
but there was no refusal on the part Q: Petitioners (Atty. Ladaga, Atty. Librado-
of the BI to acknowledge such Trinidad and Atty. Zarate) share the common
arrest nor was there any refusal to circumstance of having their names included
give information on the in the Order of Battle List (OB List) which is
whereabouts of Ku. Neither can it alleged to be containing the names of
be said that the BI had any organizations and personalities in Davao City
intention to remove Ku from the connected to the Communist Party of the
protection of the law for a Philippines (CPP) and its military arm, the
prolonged time. (Mison v. Gallegos, New People’s Army (NPA). They perceive that
G.R. No. 210759, June 23, 2015) by the inclusion of their names in the said list,
The petition may be filed by the they become easy targets of unexplained
aggrieved party or by any qualified disappearances or extralegal killings a real
person or entity in the following threat to their life, liberty and security.
order: Petitioners attested to the threatening visits
and tailing of their vehicles by menacing
1. Any member of the strangers. Also, they alleged that the OB List is
immediate family, namely: really a military hit-list as there have already
the spouse, children and been three (3) victims (Celso Pojas, Lodenio
parents of the aggrieved Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peñera) of
party; extrajudicial killing whose violent deaths can
2. Any ascendant, descendant be linked directly to the OB List. Thus, the
or collateral relative of the petitioners separately filed before the RTC a
aggrieved party within the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo.
fourth civil degree of Does the totality of evidence satisfy the degree
consanguinity or affinity, in of proof required under the Amparo Rule?
default of those mentioned
in the preceding A: NO. The Writ of Amparo was promulgated by
paragraph; or the Court pursuant to its rule-making powers in
3. Any concerned citizen, response to the alarming rise in the number of
organization, association cases of enforced disappearances and
or institution, if there is no extrajudicial killings. The burden of proof and
standard of diligence required of the Amparo established to related the subject OB List
Rule is substantial evidence or that amount of either to the threatening visits received by
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might petitioners from unknown men or to the
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In violent deaths of the three
this case, a mere inclusion of one’s name in the (3) mentioned personalities which could
OB List, without more, does not suffice to strongly suggest that the inclusion of one’s
discharge the burden to establish actual threat to name in the OB List would eventually result to
one’s right to life, liberty and security by enforced disappearance and murder of those
substantial evidence. The Court holds that the persons tagged therein as militants. (In
existence of the OB List could not be directly Matter of Petition for Issuance of a Writ Of
associated with the menacing behavior of Amparo in Favor of Lilibeth O. Ladaga, G. R.
suspicious men or the violent death of certain No. 189689, November 13, 2012, PER J.
personalities. The adduced evidence showed that, PERLAS-BERNABE)
except for Celso Pojas, the names of the supposed
victims of extrajudicial killings are manifestly Q: After arriving at the Ninoy Aquino
absent in the subject OB List. International Airport, spouses Rozelle
Raymond Martin (Raymart) and Claudine
Only actual threats, as may be established from Margaret Santiago (Claudine) waited for
all the facts and circumstances of the case, can their baggage but they were eventually
qualify as a violation that may be addressed. In informed that it was transferred to another
this case, no substantial evidence of an actual flight. While making a formal complaint,
threat to petitioners’ life, liberty and security has the spouses noticed a man, later identified
been shown to exist. No link has been sufficiently as Ramon Tulfo, taking pictures of
Claudine. A brawl thereafter ensued.
petitioners' amparo petition does not allege any
Days after the incident, Raffy, Ben, and Erwin case of extrajudicial killing and/or enforced
Tulfo, brothers of Mon, aired on their TV disappearance, or any threats thereof, in the
program comments against the spouses and senses above-described. Their petition is merely
threatened to retaliate. Terrified, the spouses anchored on a broad invocation of respondents'
filed before the RTC a petition for the issuance purported violation of their right to life and
of a writ of amparo against them. Will the security, carried out by private individuals
petition prosper? without any showing of direct or indirect
government participation. (Spouses Rozelle
A: NO. The Rule on the Writ of Amparo was Raymond Martin and Claudine Margaret
intended to address cases involving extralegal Santiago vs. Raffy Tulfo, Ben Tulfo, And Erwin
killings and/or enforced disappearances, or Tulfo, G.R. No. 205039, October 21, 2015, PER J.
threats thereof. In this case, it is undisputed that PERLAS-BERNABE)
CITIZENSHIP A: There are public offices/government positions
that requires a Filipino citizen to be a natural-
Citizenship born.
It pertains to a membership in a political Government officials required to be natural-

community, which is personal and more or less born Filipino citizens
permanent in character.
1. President;
Citizenship vs. Nationality 2. Vice-President;
3. Members of Congress;
Citizenship Nationality 4. Justices of Supreme Court and lower
A term denoting It has a broader collegiate courts;
membership of a meaning, embracing 5. Ombudsman and his deputies;
citizen in a political all who owe allegiance 6. Members of Constitutional Commissions;
society, which to a state, whether 7. Members of the Central Monetary
membership implies, democratic or not, Authority;
reciprocally, a duty of without thereby 8. Members of the Commission on Human
allegiance on the part becoming citizens. Rights.
of the member and Because they owe
duty of protection on allegiance to it, they MODES OF ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP
the part of the state are not regarded as
aliens. 1. By birth
a. Jus Sanguinis – On the basis of
WHO ARE FILIPINO CITIZENS blood relationship.
b. Jus Soli – On the basis of the
The following are citizens of the Philippines: place of birth.
(1) Those who are Filipino citizens at the 2. By naturalization – The legal act of
time of the adoption of the 1987 adopting an alien and clothing him with
Constitution; the privilege of a citizen.
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are 3. By marriage – When a foreign woman
citizens of the Philippines; marries a Filipino husband, provided, she
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of possesses all qualifications and none of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine the disqualifications for naturalization.
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and LOSS AND RE-ACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance CITIZENSHIP
with law. (Art. IV, Sec. 1, 1987
Constitution) Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired
in the manner provided by law. (Sec. 3, Art. IV,
Caram rule 1987 Costitution)
Natural-Born Filipino Citizens Loss of Philippine citizenship; Grounds
The following are natural-born Filipino citizens: 1. Naturalization in a foreign country;

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines 2. Express renunciation of citizenship
from birth without having to perform any (expatriation); or
act to acquire or perfect their Philippine 3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to
citizenship; the constitution or laws of a foreign
(2) Those who elect Philippine citizenship in country upon attaining 21 years of age;
accordance with Par. 3, Sec. 1, Art. IV of or
the 1987 Constitution shall be deemed 4. Rendering service to or accepting
natural-born citizens. commission in the armed forces of a
Q: Not all citizens of the Philippines are foreign country unless:
natural-born. What is the relevance of the a. The Philippines has a defensive
status of being a natural-born Filipino citizen? and/or offensive pact of alliance
with the said foreign country; or

CITIzeNSHIP
b. The said foreign country issue the certificate of identification as Filipino
maintains armed forces in the citizen to the repatriated citizen.
Philippine territory with its
consent provided that at the RA 9225 “Citizenship Retention and Re-
time of rendering said service, or acquisition Act of 2003”
acceptance of said commission,
and taking the oath of allegiance Reacquisition
incident thereto, states that he
does so only in connection with Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have
its service to said foreign lost their Filipino citizenship due to
country. naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are
deemed to have re-acquired Philippine
5. Cancellation of certificate of citizenship; and
naturalization (Denaturalization); or
6. Having been declared by final judgment a Retention
deserter of the armed forces of the
Philippines in times of war; or Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after
7. In case of a woman, upon her marriage, the effectivity of RA 9225, become citizens of a
to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in foreign country shall retain their Philippine
force in her husband’s country, she citizenship. (David vs. Agbay, G.R. No. 199113,
acquires his nationality. March 18, 2015)
Ways to reacquire citizenship Running for Elective Posts; Oath of Allegiance

and Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship
1. Naturalization;
2. Repatriation; and R.A. 9225 requires Filipinos availing themselves
3. Direct act of Congress. of the benefits under the said Act to (1) take their
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Naturalization Philippines, but also to (2) explicitly renounce
their foreign citizenship if they wish to run for
An act of formally adopting a foreigner into the elective posts in the Philippines.
political body of a nation by clothing him or her
with the privileges of a citizen. The oath of allegiance is a general requirement
for all those who wish to run as candidates in
Repatriation Philippine elections; while the renunciation of
foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only
The recovery of the original nationality. This for those who have retained or reacquired
means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his Philippine citizenship under R.A. No. 9225 and
citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a who seek elective public posts, considering their
naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if special circumstance of having more than one
he was originally a natural-born citizen before he citizenship. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine
lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored elections, Filipinos must only have one
to his former status as a natural-born Filipino. citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship. (Jacot
(Bengzon vs. HRET and Cruz, G.R. No. 142840, May vs. Dal, G.R. No. 179848, November 27, 2008) By
7, 2001) renouncing foreign citizenship, one is deemed to
be solely a Filipino citizen, regardless of the effect
How repatriation is effected of such renunciation under the laws of the foreign
country.
Repatriation shall be effected by:
1. Taking the necessary oath of allegiance Filing of a certificate of candidacy does not
to the Republic of the Philippines; and ipso facto amount to a renunciation of foreign
2. Registration in the proper civil registry citizenship
and in the Bureau of Immigration.
RA 9225 requires the twin requirements of
The Bureau of Immigration shall thereupon swearing to an Oath of Allegiance and executing a
cancel the pertinent alien certificate of Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship. (Roseller De
registration and Guzman v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180048, June 19,
POLITICAL LAW
2009)
Commission was not with dual citizens per se but
Effect of use of foreign passport; Maquiling

doctrine
Use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation

or recantation of the oath of renunciation. The
renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow
oath that can simply be professed at any time,
only to be violated the next day. It requires an
absolute and perpetual renunciation of the
foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all
civil and political rights granted by the foreign
country which granted the citizenship. (Maquiling
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013)
Strict adherence to Maquiling doctrine
Matters dealing with qualifications for public

elective office must be strictly complied with. the
novelty of the issue is not an excuse from strictly
complying with the eligibility requirements to
run for public office or to simply allow [a
candidate] to correct the deficiency in his
qualification by submitting another oath of
renunciation. It is with more reason that we
should similarly require strict compliance with
the qualifications to run for local elective office.
(Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, August 18,
2015)
DUAL CITIZENSHIP AND DUAL ALLEGIANCE
Dual Citizenship vs. Dual Allegiance
Dual Citizenship Dual Allegiance

It arises when, as a This refers to the
result of concurrent situation where a
application of the person
different laws of two simultaneously owes,
or more States, a by some positive act,
person is loyalty to two or more
simultaneously States.
considered a citizen of
both said states.
It is allowed It is prohibited by the
considering that their Constitution because
condition is merely an it is inimical to the
unavoidable national interest.
consequence of
conflicting laws of
different states.
Q: Is dual citizenship allowed? If yes, can

persons with dual citizenship run for public
office?
A: YES. The concern of the Constitutional

children with a foreign father of a mother
with naturalized citizens who who was a citizen of the Philippines, and
maintain their allegiance to their also foundlings; but this amendment was
countries of origin even after their defeated primarily because the
naturalization. Consequently, Convention believed that the cases, being
persons with mere dual citizenship too few to warrant the inclusion of a
are not disqualified considering that provision in the Constitution to apply to
their condition is the unavoidable them, should be governed by statutory
consequence of conflicting laws of legislation. Moreover, it was believed
different states. Unlike those with that the rules of international law were
dual allegiance, who must, already clear to the effect that
therefore, be subject to strict illegitimate children followed the
process with respect to the citizenship of the mother, and that
termination of their status. foundlings followed the nationality of the
place where they were
The fact that a person has dual
citizenship does not disqualify him found, Filipino. (Poe-
from running for public office. thereby Llamanzares v.
(Cordora v. COMELEC, G.R. No. making COMELEC; G.R.
176947, February 19, 2009) unnecessar No. 221697;
Candidates with dual citizenship y the March 8, 2016)
can run for public office provided inclusion in
that upon the filing of their the Q: Grace Poe-
certificates of candidacy, they elect Constitutio Llamanzares
Philippine citizenship to terminate n of the was found
their status as persons with dual proposed abandoned as a
citizenship. (Mercado vs. Manzano, amendmen newborn infant
G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999) t. (Poe- in the Parish
Llamanzar Church of Jaro,
FOUNDLINGS es Iloilo. Having
v. COMELEC, parental care
Foundlings are natural-born citizens G.R. No. and custody
221697, over her,
As a matter of law, foundlings are as March 8, Emiliano Militar
a class, natural-born citizens. While 2016) reported and
the 1935 Constitution's registered her as
enumeration is silent as to Domestic laws on a foundling with
foundlings, there is no restrictive adoption also the Office of the
language which would definitely support the Civil Registrar of
exclude foundlings either. Because principle that Iloilo City.
of silence and ambiguity in the foundlings are Consequently, a
enumeration with respect to Filipinos Foundling
foundlings, there is a need to Certificate was
examine the intent of the framers. These laws do not issued in her
provide that favor.
The deliberations of the 1934 adoption confers Eventually,
Constitutional Convention show citizenship upon Grace Poe ran
that the framers intended the adoptee. for presidency.
foundlings to be covered by the Rather, the adoptee In her Certificate
enumeration. Also, the delegate to must be a Filipino of Candidacy,
the Convention and constitution in the first place to she declared
law author Jose Aruego said that: be adopted. herself as a
Adoption deals natural-born
During the debates on this with status, and a citizen.
provision, Delegate Rafols Philippine adoption However, Atty.
presented an amendment court will have Estrella
to include as Filipino jurisdiction only if Elamparo
citizens the illegitimate the adoptee is a opposed this
171
because Philippines election of such
under the from birth citizenship by one perfect it. (Poe-
Constitutio without born of an alien Llamanzares v.
n averring having to father and a COMELEC, G.R. No.
that the perform Filipino mother 221697, March 8, 2016)
process to any act to under the 1935
determine acquire or Constitution, which Foundlings are
that a child perfect is an act to
is a their likewise
foundling Philippine
leading to citizenship. citizens under
the " In the international law
issuance of first place,
a foundling "having to All of the
certificate perform an international law
under these act" means conventions and
laws and that the act instruments on the
the must be matter of nationality
issuance of personally of foundlings were
said done by designed to address
certificate the citizen. the plight of a
are acts to In this defenseless class
acquire or instance, which suffers from a
perfect the misfortune not of
Philippine determinat their own making.
citizenship ion of We cannot be
which make foundling restrictive as to their
the status is application if we are
foundling a done not a country which calls
naturalized by the child itself civilized and a
Filipino at but by the member of the
best. Thus, authorities. community of
Poe- Secondly, nations.
Llamanzare the object
s is not a of the The common thread
natural- process is of the UDHR, UNCRC
born citizen the and ICCPR is to
since she determinat obligate the
performed ion of the Philippines to grant
an act to whereabou nationality from
acquire or ts of the birth and ensure that
perfect parents, no child is stateless.
Philippine not the This grant of
citizenship. citizenship nationality must be
Is Atty. of the child. at the time of birth.
Elamparo Lastly, the
correct? process is Universal Declaration
certainly of Human Rights
A: NO. not (UDHR) Article 15 of
Under analogous the UDHR states that:
Article IV, to “Everyone has the
Section 2 naturalizati right to a nationality”
"Natural- on and that “No one shall
born citizens proceeding be arbitrarily
are those s to acquire deprived of his
who are Philippine nationality nor denied
citizens of citizenship, the right to change his
the or the nationality.”

Hague
UN Convention on Convention on
the Rights of the Certain
Child (UNCRC) Questions
Relating to the
Article 7 of Conflict of
UNCRC imposes Nationality
the obligation Laws
on our country
that “The child Article 14 of
shall be the
registered abovemention
immediately ed convention
after birth and provides that
shall have the a foundling is
right from birth presumed to
to a name, the have the
right to acquire "nationality of
a nationality the country of
and as far as birth."
possible, the
right to know United Nations
and be cared Convention on the
for by his or her Reduction of
parents” and Statelessness
that “States
Parties shall
ensure the
implementation
of these rights
in accordance
with their
national law
and their
obligations
under the
relevant
international
instruments in
this field, in
particular
where the child
would
otherwise be
stateless.”
International
Covenant on
Civil and
Political Rights
(ICCPR)
Article 24 of ICCPR
thereof provide for
the right of every
child "to acquire a
nationality"
173
Article 2 thereof provides that a foundling found
in the territory of a Contracting State shall, in the
absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to
have been born within the territory of parents
possessing the nationality of that State.
LAW On PUBlIC OffICeRs
NOTE: However, right to a public office is
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Public office
It is the right, authority, and duty created and

conferred by law, by which for a given period,
either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of
the creating power, an individual is invested with
some portion of the sovereign functions of the
government, to be exercised by him for the
benefit of the public. (Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas,
G.R. No. 116418, March 7, 1995)
The individual so invested is a public officer.

(Laurel v. Desierto, G.R. No. 145368, April 12, 2002)
Purpose of a public office
A public office is created to effect the end for

which government has been instituted which is
the common good; not profit, honor, or private
interest of any person, family or class of persons.
(63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees 667
[1997])
Characteristics of public office (P3VN)
1. It is a Public trust – The principle of “public

office is a public trust” means that the officer
holds the public office in trust for the benefit
of the people—to whom such officers are
required to be accountable at all times, and to
serve with utmost responsibility, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and
lead modest lives. (1987 Constitution, Art. XI,
Sec. 1)
2. It is not a Property and is outside commerce
of man. It cannot be the subject of a contract.–
The concept "public office is not a property”
means that no officer an aquire vested right
in the holding of a public office, nor can his
right to hold the office be transmitted to his
heirs upon his death. Neverthless, the right to
hold a public office is a protected right-
secured bu due process and the provision of
Constitution on security of tenure. (Santos v.
Secretary of Labor, G.R. No.L-21624, February
27, 1968)
3. It is Personal to the public officer – It is not a
property transmissible to the heirs of the
officer upon the latter’s death. (Santos v.
Secretary of Labor, G.R. No.L-21624, February
27, 1968)
4. It is not a Vested right.
POLITICAL LAW
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
nevertheless a protected right. It cannot be taken
from its incumbent without due process. (Morfe
v. Mutuc, G.R. No. L-20387, January 31, 1968;
Aparri v. CA, G.R. No. L- 30057, January. 31, 1984)
5. It is not a Natural right – Under our political

system, the right to hold public office exists only
because and by virtue of some law expressly or
impliedly creating and conferring it.
Elements of a public office (CALIC)
1. Created by Constitution or by law or by some

body or agency to which the power to create the
office has been delegated;
2. Invested with Authority to exercise some portion
of the sovereign power of the State;
3. The powers conferred and the duties to be
discharged must be defined directly or impliedly
by the Legislature or through legislative
authority;
4. Duties are performed Independently without
control unless those of a subordinate; and
5. Continuing and permanent. (Fernandez v. Sto.
Tomas, G.R. No. 116418, March 7, 1995; Tejada
v. Domingo, G.R. No. 91860, January 13, 1992)
Public office vs. Public contract
BASIS PUBLIC PUBLIC

OFFICE CONTRACT
Incident of Originates
sovereignty. from the will
of the
contracting
As to
parties,
creation
subject to the
limitations
imposed by
law.
Has for its Imposes
object the obligations
carrying out of only upon
sovereign as persons who
As to well as entered the
persons governmental same.
affected functions
affecting even
persons not
bound by
contract.
As to Embraces the Is almost
subject idea of tenure, always
matter duration, and limited in its
and scope continuity. The duration and
b. duties specific in its Honorary.
connected objects. Its
therewith are terms define 7. As to legality of title to office
generally and limit the a. De facto; or
continuing and rights and b. De jure.
permanent. obligations of
Kinds of Government Employment the parties,
and neither
may depart CAREER SERVICE NON-CAREER
therefrom SERVICE
without the Entrance is based on Entrance is based on
consent of the merits and fitness, qualifications other
other. which is determined than merit and fitness.
by competitive
Public officer examination (except
for non-competitive
The public officer, generally, is the one who holds positions) or based
a “public office.” A public officer is such an officer on highly technical
as is required by law to be elected or appointed, qualifications.
who has a designation or title given to him by law, Opportunity for No such opportunity.
and who exercise functions concerning the public, advancement to
assigned to him by law. higher career
position.
NOTE: Under Section 2 (b), RA 3019: The Anti- There is security of Tenure is limited to a
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, public officer tenure. period specified by
includes elective and appointive officials and law, coterminus with
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the appointing
the classified, unclassified or exempt service, authority or subject to
receiving compensation, even nominal, from the his pleasure, or which
government. is limited to the
duration of a
Kinds of a public officer particular purpose.
1. As to creation MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLE TO PUBLIC

a. Constitutional; or OFFICE
b. Statutory.
Modes of filling up public offices
2. As to nature of functions
a. Civil; or 1. Appointment;
b. Military. 2. Election;
3. Designation; or
3. As to the branch of Government to which it 4. In some instances by contract or by some
belongs other modes authorized by law. (Preclaro v.
a. Legislative; Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 111091, Aug. 21,
b. Executive; or 1995)
c. Judicial. a. Succession by operation of law;
4. As to the branch of Government served or
a. National; or b. By direct provisions of law.
b. Local.
KINDS OF APPOINTMENT
5. As to exercise of judgment
a. Quasi-Judicial/Discretionary; or Appointment
b. Ministerial.
The act of designation by the executive officer,
6. As to compensation board, or body to whom that power has been
a. Lucrative, office of profit, or office delegated, the individual who is to exercise the
coupled with an interest; or powers and functions of a given office. It refers to
the nomination or designation of an individual to
an office. (Borromeo v. Mariano, G.R. No. L-16808, Appointing authority
January 3, 1921)
1. Inherently belongs to the people.
It is, in law, equivalent to “filling a vacancy”.
(Conde It belongs to where the people have chosen to
v. National Tobacco Corp., G.R. No. L-11985, place it by their Constitution or laws. (63C Am.
January 28, 1961) Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees 738,
1997)
NOTE: It is a basic precept in the law of public
officers that no person, no matter how qualified 2. Entrusted to designated elected and appointed
and eligible he is for a certain position may be public officials.
appointed to an office which is not vacant. There
can be no appointment to a non-vacant position. The appointment of public officials is generally
The incumbent must first be legally removed, or looked upon as properly belonging to the
his appointment validly terminated before one executive department. Appointments may also
could be validly installed to succeed him. (Garces be made by Congress or the courts, but when
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114795, July 17, 1996) so made should be taken as an incident to the
discharge of functions within their respective
Nature of appointment spheres. (Government v. Springer, 50 Phil. 259,
affirmed in Springer v. Government, 277 U.S.
Appointment is an essentially discretionary 189, 72 Ed. 845, 48 S.CT. 480 [1928])
power and must be performed by the officer in
which it is vested according to his best lights, the NOTE: The general rule is that the appointing
only condition being that the appointee should power is the exclusive prerogative of the
possess the qualifications required by law. If he President, upon which no limitations may be
does, then the appointment cannot be faulted on imposed by Congress, except those resulting from
the ground that there are others better qualified the need of securing the concurrence of the
who should have been preferred. This is a Commission of Appointments and from the
political question involving considerations of exercise of the limited power to prescribe the
wisdom which only the appointing authority can qualifications or disqualifications to a given
decide. (Luego v. CSC, appointive office. (Rafael v. Embroidery and
G.R. No. L-69137, August 5, 1986) Apparel Control and Inspections Board, G.R. No. L-
19978, September. 29, 1967)
Appointment vs. Designation
Where the law is silent as to who is the
APPOINTMENT DESIGNATION appointing authority, it is understood to be the
It is the selection by It connotes merely the President of the Philippines. (Rufino v. Endriga,
the proper authority imposition by law of G.R. No. 139554, July 21, 2006)
of an individual who additional duties on an
is to exercise the incumbent official.. Absent any contrary statutory provision, the
functions of a given power to appoint carries with it the power to
office. remove or discipline. (Aguirre, Jr. v. De Castro, G.R.
It connotes Shall hold the office No. 127631, December 17, 1999)
permanence. When only in a temporary
completed, ususally capacity and maybe President appoints four groups of officers
with its confirmation, replaced at will by the (1987 Constitution, Art. VII, Sec. 16)
appointment results in appoiting authority. It
security of tenure does not confer 1. First group - Heads of the Executive
unless he is security of tenure in departments, ambassadors, other public
replaceable at the the person named. ministers and consuls, officers of the armed
pleasure because of forces from the rank of colonel or naval
the nature of his office. captain, and other officers;
Essentially executive Legislative in nature.
in nature. NOTE: The only officers whose
(Binamira v. Garrucho, (Binamira v. Garrucho, appointments need confirmation by the
G.R. No. 92008, July 30, G.R. No. 92008, July 30, Commission on Appointments are those
1990) 1990) mentioned in the first group.
2. Second group - Those whom the President
may be authorized by law to appoint without the appointment ban. These steps in the
the consent of the Commission on appointment process should always concur and
Appointments; operate as a single process. There is no valid
appointment if the process lacks even one step.
3. Third group - Refers to all other officers of (Velicaria-Garafil v. Office Of The President, G.R.
the Government whose appointments are No. 203372, June 16, 2015)
not otherwise provided by law (the law is
silent or if the law authorizing the head of a Procedure for the appointment of those that
department, agency, commission, or board require confirmation by the Commission on
to appoint is declared unconstitutional) and Appointments
without the consent of the Commission on
Appointments; and 1. Nomination by the President;
2. Confirmation by the Commission on
4. Fourth group - Lower-ranked officers Appointments;
whose appointments Congress may by law 3. Issuance of commission; and
vest in the heads of departments, agencies, 4. Acceptance by the appointee.
commissions, or boards.
NOTE: Appointment is deemed complete upon
Appointee’s acceptance of office acceptance. Pending such acceptance, which is
optional on the part of the appointee, the
GR: An appointee’s acceptance of office is not appointment may still be validly withdrawn.
necessary to complete or to make the
appointment valid where there is no provision of GR: Appointment to a public office cannot be
law to the contrary. forced upon any citizen.
XPN: Acceptance, however, is necessary to enable XPN: If it is for purposes of defense of the State
the appointee to have full possession, enjoyment, under Sec. 4, Art. 2 (also an XPN to the rule
and responsibility of an office. (Borromeo v against involuntary servitude). (Lacson v. Romero,
Mariano, G.R. No. L-16808, January 3, 1921; Lacson No. L- 3081, Oct. 14, 1949)
v. Romero, G.R. No. L-3081, October 14, 1949)
NOTE:
NOTE: An appointee cannot impose his own  In ad interim appointments, steps 1, 3 and 4
conditions for the acceptance of a public office. He precede step 2.
may only either accept or decline it. (De Leon,  For appointments which do not require
2014) confirmation, step 2 is skipped.
The following elements should always concur Kinds of Appointments

in the making of a valid (which should be
understood as both complete and effective) 1. Permanent –An appointment in the civil
appointment service issued to a person who meets all the
requirements for the position to which he is
1. Authority to appoint and evidence of the being appointed, including the appropriate
exercise of the authority; eligibility prescribed, in accordance with the
2. Transmittal of the appointment paper and provisions of law, rules and standards
evidence of the transmittal; promulgated in pursuance thereof. It lasts
3. A vacant position at the time of until lawfully terminated, thus, enjoys
appointment; and security of tenure. [P.D. 807 (Civil Service
4. Receipt of the appointment paper and Decree), Sec. 25(a)]
acceptance of the appointment by the
appointee who possesses all the 2. Temporary – A kind of appointment issued to
qualifications and none of the a person who meets all the requirements for
disqualifications. the position to which he is being appointed,
except the appropriate civil service eligibility,
The concurrence of all these elements should in the absence of appropriate eligibilities and
always apply, regardless of when the it becomes necessary in the public interest to
appointment is made, whether outside, just fill a vacancy. [P.D. 807, Sec. 25(b)]
before, or during
NOTE: Temporary appointment shall not
exceed 12 months, but the appointee may be Meets all Has not qualified in an
replaced sooner if a qualified civil service requirements for appropriate
eligible becomes available. [P.D. 807, Sec. position except civil examination but
25(b)] service eligibility. otherwise meets
[Sec 25(b), Civil requirements for
One who holds a temporary or acting Service Act of 1959] appointment to a
appointment has no fixed tenure of office, regular position.
and, therefore, his enjoyment can be
terminated at the pleasure of the appointing NOTE: Provisional appointments in general
power even without hearing or cause. have already been abolished by R.A. 6040.
(Erasmo v. Home Insurance & Guaranty However, it still applies with regard to
Corporation, G.R. No. 139251, August 29, teachers under the Magna Carta for Public
2002) School Teachers.
However, if the appointment is for a specific 4. Regular appointment – One made by the
period, the appointment may not be revoked President while Congress is in session, takes
until the expiration of the term. effect only after confirmation by the CA and,
once approved, continues until the end of the
NOTE: Acquisition of civil service eligibility term of the appointee.
will not automatically convert the temporary
appointment into a permanent one. (Prov. Of 5. Ad interim appointment– One made by the
Camarines Sur v. CA, G.R. No. 104639, July 14, President while Congress is not in session,
1995) which takes effect immediately, but ceases to
be valid if:
3. Provisional appointment – One which may be a. Disapproved by the CA or
issued, upon the prior authorization of the b. Upon the next adjournment of Congress,
Commissioner of the CSC, to a person who has either in regular or special session, the
not qualified in an appropriate examination CA has not acted upon it. (1990, 1994
but who otherwise meets the requirements for Bar)
appointment to a regular position in the
competitive service, whenever a vacancy Difference between Regular appointment, Ad interim
occurs and the filling thereof is necessary in appointment, Temporary appointment and
the interest of the service and there is no Designation
appropriate register of eligibles at the time of
appointment. (Jimenea v. Guanzon, G.R. No. L- TEMPO- DESIGNAT
REGUL AD
24795, January 29, 1968) RARY or ION
AR INTERIM
ACTING
Temporary Appointment vs. Provisional Made Made Lasts Mere
Appointment (1994 Bar) when when until a imposition
Congres Congress perm- of new or
TEMPORARY PROVISIONAL s is in is NOT in anent additional
APPOINTMENT APPOINTMENT session. session. appointm duties to be
Issued to a person to Issued upon to the ent is performed
a position needed prior authorization of issued. by an
only for a limited CSC. [Sec 24(e), Civil officer in a
period not exceeing Service Act of 1959] special
twelve months. [Sec manner
24(d), Civil Service while he
Act of 1959] performs
Necessary in the Vacancy occurs and the
public interest to fill the filing thereof is function of
the vacancy. necessary in the his
interest of the service permanent
& there is no office.
appropriate register of Made Made Cannot The officer
eligible at the time of only before be validly is already
appointment. after the confirmat confirme in service
nominat d by the by virtue of
ion is ion of the CA an earlier the first instance by the Department Head, subject to
confirm CA. because appointme appeal to the CSC.
ed by there was nt
CA. no valid performing The protest must be for a cause (i.e. appointee is
nominati other not qualified; appointee was not the next-in-rank;
on functions. unsatisfactory reasons given by the appointing
Continu Shall May be Maybe authority in making the questioned appointment).
es until cease to terminat terminate The mere fact that the protestant has the more
the be valid if ed at the d anytime. impressive resume is not a cause for opposing an
expira dis-app- pleasure appointment. (Aquino v. CSC, G.R. No. 92403, April
-tion of -roved by of 22, 1992)
the CA or appointin
term. upon the g power Revocation vs. Recall of appointment
next without
adjourn- hearing Where an appointment requires the approval of
ment of or cause. the CSC, such appointment may be revoked or
Congress. withdrawn by the appointing authority any time
before the approval by the CSC.
Acting Appointment (2003 Bar)
After an appointment is completed, the CSC has
An acting appointment is merely temporary. the power to recall an appointment initially
(Sevilla v. CA, G.R. No. 88498, June 9, 1992) A approved on any of the following grounds:
temporary appointment cannot become a
permanent appointment, unless a new 1. Non-compliance with procedures/criteria in
appointment, which is permanent, is made. merit promotion plan;
(Marohombsar v. Alonto, G.R. No. 93711, February 2. Failure to pass through the selection board;
25, 1991) 3. Violation of existing collective relative
agreement to promotion;
However, if the acting appointment was made 4. Violation of CSC laws, rules and regulations.
because of a temporary vacancy, the temporary (Debulgado v. CSC, G.R. No. 111471, Sept. 26,
appointee holds office until the assumption of 1994)
office by the permanent appointee. In such case,
the appointing authority cannot use the acting Term vs. Tenure
appointment as a justification in order to evade
or avoid the security of tenure principle provided TERM TENURE
for under the Constitution and the Civil Service Fixed and definite period The period during
Law. (Gayatao v. CSC, G.R. No. 93064, June 22, of the time which the law which the
1992) prescribes that an office incumbent actually
may hold an office. holds the office.
Q: Can the CSC revoke an appointment by the It is not affected by It may be shorter
appointing power and direct the appointment holding over of the than term.
of an individual of its choice? incumbent after
expiration of the term for
A: NO. The CSC cannot dictate to the appointing which he was appointed
power whom to appoint. Its function is limited to or elected.
determining whether or not the appointee meets
the minimum qualification requirements NOTE: Term of office is different from the right to
prescribed for the position. Otherwise, it would hold office. The latter is the just and legal claim to
be encroaching upon the discretion of the hold and enjoy the powers and responsibilities of
appointing power. (Medalla v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. the office. (Casibang v. Aquino, G.R. No. L-38025,
94255, May 5, 1992) August 20, 1979)
Protest to appointment Kinds of terms
Any person who feels aggrieved by the 1. Term fixed by law;

appointment may file an administrative protest 2. Term dependent on good behavior until
against such appointment. Protests are decided in reaching retirement age; and
3. Indefinite term, which terminates at the
pleasure of the appointing authority. (Borres the lack of the authority to appoint one since no
v. CA, G.R. No. L-36845, August 21, 1998) vacancy exists. (Aldovino v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
184836, December 23, 2009)
Three-Term Limit Rule
Concept of “Hold-over”
The term of office of elective local officials,
except barangay officials, which shall be In the absence of an express or implied
determined by law, shall be three years and no constitutional or statutory provision to the
such official shall serve for more than contrary, an officer is entitled to hold office until
three consecutive terms. his successor is elected or appointed and has
qualified. (Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
For the three-term limit rule for elective local 130872, March 25, 1999)
government officials to apply, two conditions or
requisites must concur, to wit: 1) that the official Term limits of elective officers
concerned has been elected for three consecutive
terms in the same local government post, and 2) 1. President – Six years, without re-election;
that he has fully served three consecutive terms. 2. Vice President – Six years, with one re-
(Lonzanida v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135150, July 28, election if consecutive;
1999) 3. Senators – six years, with one re-election if
consecutive;
Rationale: To prevent the establishment of 4. Representative – three years, with two re-
political dynasties and to enhance the freedom of elections if consecutive; and
choice of the people. (Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. 5. Local Executive Officials – three years, with
No. 133495, Sept. 3, 1998) two re-elections if consecutive, in the same
position.
Voluntary renunciation
ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATION
It is an act of surrender based on the REQUIREMENTS
surrenderee’s own freely exercised will; in other
words, a loss of title to office by conscious choice. Requirements for public office
(Aldovino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 184836, December
23, 2009) 1. Eligibility – It is the state or quality of being
legally fit or qualified to be chosen.
NOTE: Voluntary renunciation of the office for
any length of time shall not be considered as an 2. Qualification – This refers to the act which a
interruption in the continuity of his service for person, before entering upon the
the full term for which he was elected. (1987 performance of his duties, is by law
Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 8) required to do such as the taking, and
often, subscribing and filing of an official
Q: Is the preventive suspension of an elected oath, and, in some cases, the giving of an
public official an interruption of his term of official bond. It may refer to:
office for purposes of the three-term limit rule a. Endowments, qualities or attributes
under Section 8, Article X of the Constitution which make an individual eligible for
and Section 43(b) of Republic Act No. 7160? public office e.g. citizenship; or
b. The act of entering into the performance
A: NO. Strict adherence to the intent of the three- of the functions of a public office e.g.
term limit rule demands that preventive taking oath of office..
suspension should not be considered an
interruption that allows an elective officials stay NOTE: To entitle a public officer to hold a public
in office beyond three terms. A preventive office, he must possess all the qualifications and
suspension cannot simply be a term interruption none of the disqualifications prescribed by law
because the suspended official continues to stay for the position, not only at the time of his
in office although he is barred from exercising the election or appointment but also during his
functions and prerogatives of the office within the incumbency.
suspension period. The best indicator of the
suspended officials continuity in office is General Qualifications for Public Office
the absence of a permanent replacement and (CARESCAP)
1. Citizenship;
tenure. Once any of the required qualification is
NOTE: Only natural-born Filipinos who owe lost, his title may be reasonably challenged.
total and undivided allegiance to the Republic (Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 87193, June 23,
of the Philippines could run for and hold 1989; Aguila v. Genato, G. R No. L-55151, March 17,
elective public office. (Arnado v. COMELEC, 1981)
G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015)
Authority to prescribe qualifications
Congress enacted R.A. 9225 allowing natural-
born citizens of the Philippines who have lost Congress is generally empowered to prescribe the
their Philippine citizenship by reason of their qualifications for holding public office, provided it
naturalization abroad to reacquire Philippine does not exceed thereby its constitutional powers
citizenship and to enjoy full civil and political or impose conditions of eligibility inconsistent
rights upon compliance with the with constitutional provisions.
requirements of the law. They may now run
for public office in the Philippines provided Limitation on the power of Congress to
that they: (1) meet the qualifications for prescribe qualifications
holding such public office as required by the
Constitution and existing laws; and (2) make Congress has no power to require qualifications
a personal and sworn renunciation of any and other than those qualifications specifically set out
all foreign citizenships before any public in the Constitution. Such Constitutional criteria
officer authorized to administer an oath prior are exclusive.
to or at the time of filing of their CoC. (Arnado
v. COMELEC, ibid.; RA 9225, Sec. 5) Power of Congress to prescribe
disqualifications
This rule applies to all those who have re-
acquired their Filipino citizenship without In the absence of constitutional inhibition,
regard as to whether they are still dual Congress has the same right to provide
citizens or not. It is a pre-requisite imposed disqualifications as it has to provide qualifications
for the exercise of the right to run for public for office.
office. (Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
198742, August 10, 2012) Congress, however, may not add disqualifications
where the Constitution has provided them in such
For appointive public officials, R.A. 9225 a way as to indicate intention that the
requires an oath of allegiance to the Republic disqualifications provided shall embrace all
of the Philippines and its duly constituted which are to be permitted. Moreover, when the
authorities prior to their assumption of Constitution has attached a disqualification to the
office: Provided, that they renounce their oath holding of any office, Congress cannot remove it
of allegiance to the country where they took under the power to prescribe qualifications as to
that oath. [R.A. 9225, Sec. 5(3)] such offices as it may create. (46 C.J. 936-937)
2. Age; Perfection of the right of a public officer to

3. Residence; enter in office
4. Education;
5. Suffrage; Upon his oath of office, it is deemed perfected.
6. Civil service examination; Only when the public officer has satisfied this
7. Ability to read and write; and prerequisite can his right to enter into the
8. Political affiliation, as a rule, is not a position be considered complete. Until then, he
qualification. has none at all, and for as long as he has not
qualified; the holdover officer is the rightful
XPN: Party-list, membership in the Electoral occupant. (Lecaroz
Tribunal, Commission on Appointments v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999)
NOTE: The qualifications for public office are DISABILITIES AND INHIBITIONS OF PUBLIC
continuing requirements and must be possessed OFFICERS
not only at the time of appointment or election or
assumption of office but during the officer’s Disqualifications attached to civil service
entire employees or officials
1. Losing candidate in any election
a. Cannot be appointed to any office in the
government or GOCCs or their Prohibitions imposed under the Constitution
subsidiaries; and against the holding of two or more positions
b. Period of disqualification: One year after
such election. A. Members of Congress shall not:
XPN: Losing candidates in barangay 1. Appear as counsel before any court, electoral
elections tribunal, or quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies;
2. Elective officials: 2. Be interested in any contract with, or in any
GR:They are not eligible for appointment or franchise, or special privilege granted by the
designation in any capacity to any public Government, or any subdivision, agency or
office or position during their tenure. instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs, or
its subsidiary; or
XPN: May hold ex officio positions. 3. Intervene in any matter before any office of
E.g. The Vice President may be appointed as a the Government for his pecuniary benefit or
Cabinet member. where he may be called upon to act on
account of his office.
3. Appointive officials:
GR: Cannot hold any other office in the B. The President, Vice President, Members of the
government. or any agency or Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants, unless
instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs and otherwise allowed by the Constitution, shall
their subsidiaries. not:
1. Directly or indirectly practice any other
XPN: Unless otherwise allowed by law, or by profession; or
the primary functions of his position. 2. Participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any
NOTE: The exception does not apply to franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Cabinet members, and those officers Government, or any subdivision, agency or
mentioned in Art. VII, Sec. 13. They are instrumentality thereof, including GOCCs, or
governed by the stricter prohibitions its subdivisions; shall avoid conflict of
contained therein. interest in the conduct of their office.
Prohibitions attached to elective and C. Members of the Constitutional Commission

appointive officials in terms of compensation shall not:
1. Hold any other office or employment or
GR: They cannot receive: engage in the practice of any profession or in
the active management or control of any
1. Additional compensation – An extra reward business that may be affected by the
given for the same office functions of his office; or
e.g. bonus 2. Be financially interested, directly or
2. Double compensation – When an officer is indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
given two sets of compensation for two franchise, or special privilege granted by the
different offices held concurrently by one Government, or any subdivision, agencies or
officer. instrumentalities including GOCCs, or their
3. Indirect compensation subsidiaries. These shall also apply to the
Ombudsman and his deputies during his
XPN: Unless specifically authorized by law. term.
NOTE: “Specifically authorized” means a specific D. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
authority particularly directed to the officer or primary functions of his position, no
employee concerned. appointive official shall hold any other office or
employment in the Government or any
Pensions and gratuities, per diems and allowances subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
are not considered as additional, double, or including GOCCs or their subsidiaries. (1987
indirect compensation. (1987 Constitution, Art. IX- Constitution, Art. IX – B, Sec. 7; Flores v Drilon,
B, Sections 7-8) G.R. No. 104732 June 22, 1993)
E. No member of the armed forces in the active
service shall, at any time, be appointed or financial or material interest in any

designated in any capacity to a civilian
position in the government including GOCCs
or any of their subsidiaries. [1987
Constitution, Art. XVI, Sec. 5(4)]
Grounds for disqualification to hold public

office
1. Mental or physical incapacity;

2. Misconduct or commission of a crime;
3. Impeachment;
4. Removal or suspension from office;
NOTE: Where there is no constitutional or

statutory declaration of ineligibility for
suspension or removal from office, the courts
may not impose the disability.
5. Consecutive terms exceeding the allowable

number of terms;
6. Holding more than one office (except ex
officio)
7. Relationship with the appointing power
(nepotism) (2010 Bar);
8. Office newly created or the emoluments of
which have been increased (forbidden
office);
9. Being an elective official(Flores v. Drilon, G.R.
No. 104732, June 22, 1993);
10. Losing candidate in the election within 1 year
following the date of election (prohibitions
from office, not from employment); and
XPN: Losing candidates in barangay

elections
11. Grounds provided for under the LGC.
NOTE: The Supreme Court held that while all

other appointive officials in the Civil Service are
allowed to hold other office or employment in the
government during their tenure when such is
allowed by law or by the primary functions of
their positions, members of the Cabinet, their
deputies and assistants may do so only when
expressly authorized by the Constitution itself.
(Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R.
No. 83896, February 22, 1991)
Prohibitions under Code of Conduct and

Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees
1. Prohibition against financial and material

interest – Directly or indirectly having any
transaction requiring the before the office he used to be with, in which
approval of their office; case the one-year prohibition shall likewise
2. Prohibition against outside apply.
employment and other activities
related thereto – Owning, Prohibitions against the practice of other
controlling, managing or professions under the LGC
accepting employment as
officer, employee, consultant, 1. Local chief executives (governors, city and
counsel, broker, agent, trustee municipal mayors) are prohibited from
or nominee in any private practicing their profession;
enterprise regulated, 2. Sanggunian members may practice their
supervised or licensed by their profession, engage in any occupation, or
office; teach in schools except during session hours;
3. Engaging in the private and
practice of their profession; 3. Doctors of medicine may practice their
and profession even during official hours of work
4. Recommending any person to in cases of emergency provided that they do
any position in any private not derive monetary compensation
enterprise which has a regular therefrom.
or pending official transaction
with their office. Q: Can the members of Sanggunian engage in
the practice of law under the LGC?
NOTE: These prohibitions shall
continue to apply for a period A: GR: Yes.
of one year after resignation,
retirement, or separation from XPNs:
public office, except in the case 1. Cannot appear as counsel in any civil case
of participating in any business wherein a LGU or any office, agency or
or having financial interest in instrumentality of the government is the
any contract with the adverse party;
government, but the 2. Cannot appear as counsel in any criminal
professional concerned cannot case wherein an officer or employee of the
practice his profession in national or local government is accused of an
connection with any matter offense committed in relation to his office;
3. Shall not collect any fee for their appearance activities. [1987 Constitution, Art. IX(B),
in administrative proceedings involving the Sec. 2(4)]
LGU of which he is an official; and
4. May not use property and personnel of the NOTE: Partisan political activity is an act
Government, except when defending the designed to promote the election or defeat
interest of the Government. of a particular candidate/s to a public
office. It is also known as “electioneering”.
Other prohibitions imposed on public officers (OEC, Sec. 79)
1. Prohibition against solicitation of gifts. [R.A. Officers or employees in the Civil Service
6713, Sec. 7(d) ] including members of the Armed Forces
cannot engage in such activity except to
NOTE: Public officers, however, may accept vote. They shall not use their official
the following gifts from foreign governments: authority or influence to coerce the
a. Gifts of nominal value received as political activity of any person. (1987
souvenir or mark of courtesy; Administrative Code, Book V, Title I,
b. Scholarship or fellowship grant or Subtitle A, Sec. 55)
medical treatment; or
c. Travel grants or expenses for travel Officers and employees in the Civil Service
outside the Philippines. [RA 6713, Sec. can nonetheless express their views on
7(d)] current political issues and mention the
names of the candidates they support.
2. Prohibition against partisan political
Q: De Vera, a Court Stenographer deliberately
and fraudulently, and for a consideration, understanding that such gift, favor or benefit shall
misrepresented her ability to assist the influence their official actions. De Vera thus
complainant in the adoption of her niece and violated her sacred oath as a court employee to
nephew. The Office of the Court Administrator serve the Judiciary with utmost loyalty and to
equated those acts as Grave Misconduct and preserve the integrity and reputation of the
dismissed De Vera from office. Is the OCA Judiciary as an institution dispensing justice to all.
correct? Her violation was made worse by her committing
it in exchange for easy money. She was thereby
A: YES. Section 2, Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct guilty of corruption. She compounded her guilt by
or Court Personnel has enjoined all court disobeying the orders of the Court requiring her
personnel from soliciting or accepting any gift, to explain herself. Under the circumstances, she
favor or benefit based on any or explicit committed grave misconduct which is punishable
by dismissal from service. (Galindez v. Susbilla-De
Vera, A.M. No. P-13-3126, February 4, 2014)
Public officers who may engage in partisan

political activities
a. Those holding political offices, such as the

President of the Philippines, Vice President of the
Philippines; Executive Secretary or Department
Secretaries and other Members of the Cabinet; all
other elective officials at all levels; and those in
the personal and confidential staff of the above
officials; and
NOTE: It shall, however, be unlawful for them to

solicit contributions from their subordinates or
subject them to any of the acts involving
subordinates prohibited in the Election Code.
b. National, provincial, city and municipal elective

officials. (Santos v. Yatco, G.R. No. L- 16133,
November 6, 1959)
3. Prohibition against engaging in strike. (Social

Security System Employees Assn. v. CA, G.R No.
85279, July 28, 1989)
4. Restriction against engaging in the practice of
law. (R.A. 7160, Sec. 90)
5. Prohibition against practice of other
professions. (R.A. 7160, Sec. 90)
6. Restriction against engaging in private
business. (Abeto v. Garces, A.M. No. P-88-269,
December 29, 1995)
7. Restriction against accepting certain
employment. [RA 6713, Sec. 7(b)]
Q: Does the election or appointment of an

attorney to a government office disqualify him
from engaging in the private practice of law?
A: YES. As a general rule, judges, other officials of

the superior courts, of the office of the Solicitor
General and of other government prosecution
offices; the President; Vice-President, and
members of the cabinet and their deputies or
assistants; members of constitutional GR: A public officer is not liable for injuries
commissions; and civil service officers or sustained by another due to official acts done
employees whose duties and responsibilities within the scope of authority.
require that their entire time be at the disposal of
the government are strictly prohibited from XPNs:
engaging in the private practice of law. (E.O. 297) 1. Otherwise provided by law;
2. Statutory liability; (New Civil Code, Articles.
RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF PUBLIC 27, 32, 34)
OFFICERS 3. Presence of bad faith, malice, or negligence;
Rights and privileges of public officers NOTE: Absent of any showing of bad faith or
malice, every public official is entitled to the
Right to: presumption of good faith as well as
1. Office; regularity in the performance or discharge of
2. Compensation/salary; official duties. (Blaquera v. Alcala, G.R. No.
3. Appointment; 109406, September 11, 1998)
4. Vacation and sick leave;
5. Maternity leave; 4. Liability on contracts entered into in excess
6. Retirement pay; or without authority; and
7. Longevity pay; 5. Liability on tort if the public officer acted
8. Pension; beyond the limits of authority and there is
9. Self-organization; and bad faith. (USA v. Reyes, G.R. No. 79253, March
10. Protection of temporary employees. 1, 1993)
Prohibition against diminution of salary of NOTE: Ruling in Arias v. Sandiganbayan that

constitutional officers heads of offices may rely to a certain extent on
their subordinates is not automatic. As held in
Congress is given the power to fix the salaries of Cesa v. Officeof the Ombudsman, when there are
certain constitutional officers, but after it has facts that point to an irregularity and the officer
done so, it may not reduce the salary of any of failed to take steps to rectify it, even tolerating it,
them during his term or tenure. This provision is the Arias doctrine is inapplicable. (Ombudsman v.
intended to secure their independence. [1987 de los Reyes, G.R. No. 208976, October 13, 2014)
Constitution, Art. IX (A), Sec. 3]
Three-fold responsibility/liability of public
Extent of the right to self-organization of officers
employees in the public service
1. Criminal liability;
While the Constitution recognizes the right of 2. Civil liability; and
public employees to organize, they are prohibited 3. Administrative liability.
from staging strikes, demonstrations, mass
leaves, walk-outs, and other forms of mass action Liabilities of ministerial officers
which may result to temporary cessation of work
or disturbance of public service. Their right to 1. Non-feasance – It is the neglect to perform an
self- organization is limited only to form unions act which is the officer's legal obligation to
or to associate without including the right to perform.
strike. Labor unions in the government may 2. Misfeasance – The failure to observe the
bargain for better terms and conditions of proper degree of care, skill, and diligence
employment by either petitioning the Congress required in the performance of official duty;
for better terms and conditions, or negotiating and
with the appropriate government agencies for the 3. Malfeasance – It refers to the performance of
improvement of those not fixed by law. (SSS an act which the officer had no legal right to
Employees Assn. v. CA, G.R No. 85279, July 28, perform.
1989)
NOTE: The plaintiff must show that he has
Liabilities of Public officers suffered an injury, and that it results from a
breach of duty which the officer owed him.
Command Responsibility Doctrine
It is well settled, as a general rule, that public
A superior officer is liable for the acts of his officers of the government, in the performance of
subordinate in the following instances: their public functions, are not liable to third
persons, either for the misfeasances or positive
1. He negligently or willfully employs or retains wrongs, or for the nonfeasances, negligence, or
unfit or incompetent subordinates; omissions of duty of their official subordinates.
2. He negligently or willfully fails to require his (McCarthy v. Aldanese, G.R. No. L-19715, March 5,
subordinates to conform to prescribed 1923)
regulations;
3. He negligently or carelessly oversees the Rationale behind official immunity
business of the office as to give his
subordinates the opportunity for default; It promotes fearless, vigorous, and effective
4. He directed, cooperated, or authorized the administration of policies of government. The
wrongful act; or threat of suit could also deter competent people
5. The law expressly makes him liable. (E.O. No. from accepting public office.
292, Administrative Code of 1987, Book I,
Chap. 9, Sections 38 and 39) The immunity of public officers from liability for
the non-feasances, negligence or omissions of
Arias Doctrine duty of their official subordinates and even for
the latter’s misfeasances or positive wrongs rests
The head of office is not required to examine upon obvious considerations of public policy, the
every single detail of any transaction from its necessities of the public service and the
inception until it is finally approved. We would be perplexities and embarrassments of a contrary
setting a bad precedent if a head of office plagued doctrine. [Alberto Reyes, Wilfredo B. Domo-Ong
by all too common problems—dishonest or and Herminio C. Principio v. Rural Bank of San
negligent subordinates, overwork, multiple Miguel (Bulacan), Inc., G.R. No. 154499, February
assignments or positions, or plain incompetence 27, 2004]
—is suddenly swept into a conspiracy conviction
simply because he did not personally examine Applicability of the doctrine
every single detail, painstakingly trace every step
from inception, and investigate the motives of This doctrine is applicable only whenever a
every person involved in a transaction before public officer is in the performance of his public
affixing his signature as the final approving functions. On the other hand, this doctrine does
authority. not apply whenever a public officer acts outside
the scope of his public functions.
All heads of offices have to rely to a reasonable
extent on their subordinates and on the good faith NOTE: A public officer enjoys only qualified, NOT
of those who prepare bids, purchase supplies, or absolute immunity.
enter into negotiations. There has to be some
added reason why he should examine each Distinction between official immunity from
voucher in such detail. (Arias v. Sandiganbayan, State immunity
G.R. No. 81563, December 19, 1989)
Immunity of public officials is a more limited principle
NOTE: It must include certification from the than governmental immunity, since its purpose is not
subordinate and the supporting documents, directly to protect the sovereign, but rather to do so only
otherwise Arias doctrine cannot be upheld. collaterally, by protecting the public official in the
performance of his government function, while, the
Immunity of Public Officers doctrine of State immunity principally rested upon the
tenuous ground that the king could do no wrong. It serves
It is an exemption that a person or entity enjoys to protect the impersonal body politic or government
from the normal operation of the law such as a itself from tort liability.
legal duty or liability, either criminal or civil.
Immunity of public officers from liabilities to STATE IMMUNITY OFFICIAL IMMUNITY

third persons Principle of Concept of Municipal
tribunal. International Law.
public. Law.
international court or members of the Availed of by States Availed of by public
against an officials against the
The purpose is to To protect the public
protect the assets of official from liability discouraged;
the State from any arising from
judgment. negligence in the NOTE: The general rule is that a de facto
performance of his officer cannot claim salary and other
discretionary duties. compensations for services rendered by him
as such. However, the officer may retain
NOTE: When public officials perform purely salaries collected by him for services
ministerial duties, however, they may be held rendered in good faith when there is no de
liable. jure officer claiming the office.
DE FACTO vs. DE JURE OFFICERS 3. The de facto officer is subject to the same
liabilities imposed on the de jure officer in the
De jure officer discharge of official duties, in addition to
whatever special damages may be due from
A de jure officer is one who is in all respects him because of his unlawful assumption of
legally appointed or elected and qualified to office; and
exercise the office. 4. The acts of the de facto public officer, insofar
as they affect the public, are valid, binding
De facto officer (2000, 2004, 2009, 2010 Bar) and with full legal effect.
A de facto officer is one who assumed office under Manner by which challenge to a de facto office
the color of a known appointment or election but is made
which appointment or election is void for reasons
that the officer was not eligible, or that there was 1. The incumbency may not be challenged
want of power in the electing body, or that there collaterally or in an action to which the de
was some other defect or irregularity in its facto officer is not a party;
exercise, wherein such ineligibility, want of 2. The challenge must be made in a direct
power, or defect being unknown to the public. proceeding where title to the office will be
the principal issue; and
De jure officer vs. De facto officer 3. The authorized proceeding is quo warranto
either by the Solicitor General in the name of
DE JURE OFFICER DE FACTO OFFICER the Republic or by any person claiming title
Has lawful title to Has possession of and to the office.
the office. performs the duties
under a colorable title Q: Ross ran as congressman of Cagayan
without being province. His opponent, Paulo, however, was
technically qualified in the one proclaimed as the winner by the
all points of law to act. COMELEC. Ross filed seasonably a protest
Holding of office Holding of office rests on before the HRET. After two years, the HRET
rests on right. reputation. reversed the COMELEC’s decision and Ross
Officer cannot be Officer may be ousted in was proclaimed finally as the duly elected
removed through a a direct proceeding Congressman. Thus, he had only one year to
direct proceeding against him. serve in Congress.
(quo warranto).
1. Can Ross collect salaries and allowances
Effects of the acts of de facto public officers from the government for the first two
years of his term as Congressman?
1. The lawful acts, so far as the rights of third 2. Should Paulo refund to the government
persons are concerned are, if done within the the salaries and allowances he had
scope and by the apparent authority of the received as Congressman?
office, are considered valid and binding; 3. What will happen to the bills that Paulo
2. The de facto officer cannot benefit from his alone authored and were approved by the
own status because public policy demands HoR while he was seated as Congressman?
that unlawful assumption of public office be Reason and explain briefly.
A:
1. NO. Ross cannot collect salaries and
allowances from the government for the first him, and appropriated for the payment of his
two years of his term, because in the debts, because of the following reasons:
meanwhile Paulo collected the salaries and
allowances. Paulo was a de facto officer while 1. While it is still in the hands of the disbursing
he was in possession of the office. To allow officer, it belongs to the government;
Ross to collect the salaries and allowances 2. Public policy forbids such practice since it
will result in making the government pay a would be fatal to the public service; and
second time. 3. It would be tantamount to a suit against the
2. NO. Paulo is not required to refund to the State in its own court, which is prohibited,
government the salaries and allowances he except with its consent.
received. As a de facto officer, he is entitled to
the salaries and allowances because he De facto officer vs. Usurper
rendered services during his incumbency.
3. The bills which Paulo alone authored and
were approved by the House of
Representatives are valid because he was a
de facto officer during his incumbency. The
acts of a de facto officer are valid insofar as
the public is concerned. (Rodriguez v. Tan,
G.R. No. L-3913, August 7, 1952)
Recovery of the salary received by a de facto

officer during a wrongful tenure
As a rule, the rightful incumbent of the public

office may recover from a de facto officer the
salaries received by the latter during the time of
the latter's wrongful tenure even though he
entered into the office in good faith and under a
colorable title. The de facto officer takes the
salaries at his risks and must therefore account to
the de jure officer for the amounts he received.
However, where there is no de jure officer, a de
facto officer shall be entitled to the salaries and
emoluments accruing during the period when he
actually discharged the duties. (Monroy v. CA, G.R.
No. L-23258, July 1, 1967)
NOTE: In Monroy v. CA, the Supreme Court said

that the Rodriguez ruling cannot be applied for
the absence of factual and legal similarities.
Essence of de facto doctrine
The de facto doctrine has been formulated, not for

the protection of the de facto officer principally,
but rather for the protection of the public and
individuals who get involved in the official acts of
persons discharging the duties of an office
without being lawful officers.
Q: May the salary of a public officer or

employee be subject to garnishment? Why?
A: NO. It may not, by garnishment, attachment, or

order of execution, be seized before being paid to
DE FACTO OFFICER USURPER (2000 Bar)
Complies with the Takes possession
3 elements of a de of an office and
jure officer, does official acts
namely: without any
1. Existence of a actual or
de jure office; apparent
2. Must possess the authority.
legal qualifications
for the office in
question; and
3. Must have qualified
himself to perform
the duties of such
office according to
the mode
prescribed by law.
Has color of right Has neither color
or title to office. of right or title to
office.
Acts are rendered Acts are
valid as to the absolutely void.
public until his title
is adjudged
insufficient.
GR: The rightful Not entitled to
incumbent of a compensation
public office may
recover from an
officer de facto the
salary received by
the latter during
the time of his
tenure even
though he entered
into the office in
good faith and
under color of
title.
XPN:
Where there is no
de jure public
officer, the officer 1. For members of SC and judges of lower courts
de facto who in – 70 years old
good faith has had 2. Gov't officers and employees – 65 years old
possession of the 3. Optional retirement – 60 years old and must
office and has have rendered at least 20 service years
discharged the
duties pertaining Resignation (2000 Bar)
thereto, is legally
entitled to the It is the act of giving up or declining a public office
emoluments of the and renouncing the further right to use such
office, and may, in office indefinitely. In order to constitute a
an appropriate complete and operative act of resignation, the
action, recover the officer or employee must show a clear intention
salary, fees and to relinquish or surrender his position
other accompanied by an act of relinquishment.
compensations Resignation implies of the intention to surrender,
attached to the renounce, relinquish the office. (Estrada v.
office. (Gen. Desierto, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001)
Manager,
Philippine Ports It must be in writing and accepted by the accepting
Authority v. authority as provided for by law.
Monserate, G.R.
No. 129616, April Accepting authorities for resignation
17,
1. For appointed officers, the tender of
TERMINATION OF OFFICIAL RELATION
resignation must be given to the appointing
authority;
Modes of terminating official relationships
2. For elected officers, tender to officer
authorized by law to call an election to fill the
1. Expiration of term or tenure;
vacancy. The following authorized officers
2. Reaching the age limit for retirement;
are:
3. Resignation;
4. Recall;
a. Respective chambers – For members of
5. Removal;
Congress;
6. Abandonment;
b. President – For governors, vice-
7. Acceptance of an incompatible office;
governors, mayors and vice-mayors of
8. Abolition of office;
highly urbanized cities and independent
9. Prescription of the right to office;
component cities;
10. Impeachment;
c. Provincial governor – For municipal
11. Death;
mayors and vice-mayors, city mayors and
12. Failure to assume office;
vice-mayors of component cities;
13. Conviction of a crime; or
d. Sanggunian concerned – For sanggunian
14. Filing of a COC
members; and
e. Municipal/city mayors – For barangay
NOTE: Appointive officials, active members
officials.
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and
officers and employees of the GOCCs, shall be
Courtesy Resignation
resigned from his office upon the filing of his
COC. (Quinto v. COMELEC, February 22, 2010,
It cannot properly be interpreted as resignation
G.R. No. 189698)
in the legal sense for it is not necessarily a
reflection of a public official's intention to
Elective officials shall continue to hold office,
surrender his position. Rather, it manifests his
whether he is running for the same or a
submission to the will of the political authority
different position. (Fair Elections Act, Sec. 14
and the appointing power. (Ortiz V. COMELEC,
expressly repealed B.P. Blg. 881, Sec. 67)
G.R. No. 78957, June 28, 1988)
Age limit for retirement
Q: During the May 1998 election, petitioner
Sabrina was elected President while Limitations on recall
respondent Immaculate was elected Vice-
President. From the beginning of her term, 1. An elective official can be subjected to recall
petitioner was plagued by jueteng issues that only once; and
slowly eroded her popularity. Afterwards, the 2. No recall shall take place within one year
impeachment trial started and the people from the assumption of office or one year
conducted a 10-kilometer line holding lighted immediately preceding a regular local
candles in EDSA Shrine to symbolize their election. [R.A. No. 7160, Sec. 74 (b)]
solidarity in demanding Sabrina’s resignation.
On January 19, Sabrina agreed to the holding NOTE: For the time bar to apply, the
of a snap election for President. On January approaching local election must be one
20, Chief Justice Valentin administered the where the position of the official to be
oath to respondent Immaculate as President recalled is to be actually contested and filled
of the Philippines. On the same day, Sabrina by the electorate. (Angobung v. COMELEC,
issued a press statement that she was leaving G.R. No. 126576, March 5, 1997)
Malacañang Palace for the sake of peace and
in order to begin the healing process of the Effect of recall on the three-term limit rule
nation. It also appeared that on the same day, (2010 Bar)
she signed a letter stating that she was
transmitting a declaration that she was The three-term limit for local elected officials is
unable to exercise the powers and duties of not violated when a local official wins in a recall
his office and that by operation of law and the election for mayor after serving three full terms
Constitution, the Vice-President shall be the as mayor since the recall election is not
Acting President. Are the acts of Sabrina considered an immediate re-election, it is not
constitutive of resignation? counted for purposes of the three-term limit.
Term limits should be construed strictly to give
A: YES. Resignation is not a high level legal the fullest possible effect to the right of the
abstraction. It is a factual question and electorate to choose their leaders. (Socrates v.
its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an COMELEC, G.R. No. 154512, November 12, 2002)
intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by
acts of relinquishment (totality test). The validity Abandonment (2000 Bar)
of a resignation is not governed by any formal It is the voluntary relinquishment of an office by
requirement as to form. It can be oral, written, the holder with the intention of terminating his
express or implied. As long as the resignation is possession and control thereof.
clear, it must be given legal effect. (Estrada
v.Desierto, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001) Q: Does the acceptance of an incompatible
office ipso facto vacate the other?
Removal A: GR: Yes.
It refers to the forcible and permanent separation XPN: Where such acceptance is authorized by law.
of the incumbent from office before the expiration
of the public officer's term. (Feria, Jr. v. Mison, G.R. NOTE: It is contrary to the policy of the law that
No. 8196, August 8, 1989) the same individual should undertake to perform
inconsistent and incompatible duties. He who,
Recall while occupying one office, accepts another
incompatible with the first, ipso facto, absolutely
It is an electoral mode of removal employed vacates the first office. That the second office is
directly by the people themselves through the inferior to the first does not affect the rule.
exercise of their right of suffrage. It is a political
question not subject to judicial review. It is a Q: Does the acceptance of an incompatible
political question that has to be decided by the office pertain to its physical impossibility?
people in their sovereign capacity. (Evardone v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 94010, December 2, 1991) A: NO.The incompatibility contemplated is not
the mere physical impossibility of one person’s
NOTE: Recall only applies to local officials. performing the duties of the two offices due to a
lack of time or the inability to be in two places at
the same moment, but that which proceeds from
the nature and relations of the two positions to
each other as to give rise to contrariety and Propriety of Quo Warranto as a mode to
antagonism should one person attempt to remove an Impeachable Officer
faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of
one toward the incumbent of the other. The language of Section 2, Article XI of the
(Canonizado v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 133132, February Constitution does not foreclose a quo warranto
15, 2001) action against impeachable officers. The provision
uses the permissive term "may" which, in
Prescriptive period for petitions for statutory construction, denotes discretion and
reinstatement or recovery of public office cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect.
We have consistently held that the term "may" is
It must be instituted within one year from the indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity or
date of unlawful removal from the office. Such an option. The grantee of that opportunity is
period may be extended on grounds of equity. vested with a right or faculty which he has the
option to exercise. An option to remove by
Period to take the oath of office to avoid impeachment admits of an alternative mode of
failure to assume office effecting the removal.
Failure to take the oath of office within six We hold, therefore, that by its tenor, Section 2,
months from proclamation of election shall cause Article XI of the Constitution allows the
the vacancy of the office UNLESS such failure is institution of a quo warranto action against an
for a cause beyond his control. (OEC. 881, Sec. 11) impeachable officer. After all, a quo warranto
petition is predicated on grounds distinct from
Termination of official relationship through those of impeachment. The former questions the
conviction by final judgment validity of a public officer's appointment while
the latter indicts him for the so-called
When the penalty imposed carries with it the impeachable offenses without questioning his
accessory penalty of disqualification. title to the office he holds. (Republic vs. Sereno,
G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018)
Quo Warranto
NOTE: The courts should be able to inquire into
It is a proceeding or writ issued by the court to the validity of appointments even of impeachable
determine the right to use an office, position or officers. To hold otherwise is to allow an absurd
franchise and to oust the person holding or situation where the appointment of an
exercising such office, position or franchise if his impeachable officer cannot be questioned even
right is unfounded or if a person performed acts when, for instance, he or she has been
considered as grounds for forfeiture of said determined to be of foreign nationality or, in
exercise of position, office, or franchise. offices where Bar membership is a qualification,
when he or she fraudulently represented to be a
NOTE: It is commenced by a verified petition member of the Bar. Unless such an officer
brought in the name of the Republic of the commits any of the grounds for impeachment and
Philippines or in the name of the person claiming is actually impeached, he can continue
to be entitled to a public office or position discharging the functions of his office even when
usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by he is clearly disqualified from holding it. Such
another. (Rules of Court, Rule 66, Sec. 1) would result in permitting unqualified and
ineligible public officials to continue occupying
Nature and purpose of quo warranto key positions, exercising sensitive sovereign
functions until they are successfully removed
It literally means “by what authority” and the from office through impeachment. This could not
object is to determine the right of a person to the have been the intent of the framers of the
use or exercise of a franchise or office and to oust Constitution. (ibid.)
the holder from its enjoyment, if his claim is not
well-founded, or if he has forfeited his right to Prescription does not lie against the State in
enjoy the office. (Tecson v. Comelec, G.R. No. Quo Warranto Proceedings
161434, March 3, 2004)
When the Solicitor General himself commences
the quo warranto action either (1) upon the
President's directive, (2) upon complaint or (3)
when the Solicitor General has good that (a) a person usurps,
reason to believe that there is proof
intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises· a behind the rule providing a prescriptive
public office, position or franchise; (b) a public period for the filing of an action for quo
officer does or suffers an act which is a ground for warranto, reveals that such limitation can be
the forfeiture of his office; or (c) an association applied only against
acts as a corporation without being legally
incorporated or without lawful authority so to
act, he does so in the discharge of his task and
mandate to see to it that the best interest of the
public and the government are upheld. In these
three instances, the Solicitor General is mandated
under the Rules to commence the necessary quo
warranto petition.
When the government is the real party in interest,

and is proceeding mainly to assert its rights, there
can be no defense on the ground of laches or
prescription. Indubitably, the basic principle that
"prescription does not lie against the State" which
finds textual basis under Article 1108 (4) of the
Civil Code, applies in this case.
Jurisprudence across the United States likewise

richly reflect that when the Solicitor General files
a quo warranto petition in behalf of the people
and where the interests of the public are
involved, the lapse of time presents no effective
bar. Aptly, in State ex rel Stovall v. Meneley, it was
held that a quo warranto action is a governmental
function and not a propriety function, and
therefore the doctrine of laches does not apply.
That prescription does not lie in this case can also

be deduced from the very purpose of an action for
quo warranto. People v. City Whittier explains that
the remedy of quo warranto is intended to
prevent a continuing exercise of an authority
unlawfully asserted. Indeed, on point is People v.
Bailey when it ruled that because quo warranto
serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute
of limitations applies to the action.
Needless to say, no prudent and just court would

allow an unqualified person to hold public office,
much more the highest position in the Judiciary.
In this case, the Republic cannot be faulted for
questioning respondent's qualification· for office
only upon discovery of the cause of ouster.
(Republic vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11,
2018)
One-year prescriptive period applies only to

private individuals
The long line of cases decided by this Court since

the 1900's, which specifically explained the spirit
private individuals claiming rights to a public office,
not against the State.
Indeed, there is no proprietary right over a public

office. Hence, a claimed right over a public office may
be waived. In fact, even Constitutionally- protected
rights may be waived. Thus, we have consistently
held that the inaction of a person claiming right over
a public office to assert the same within the
prescriptive period provided by the rules, may be
considered a waiver of such right. This is where the
difference between a quo warranto filed by a private
individual as opposed to one filed by the State
through the Solicitor General lies. There is no claim
of right over a public office where it is the State itself,
through the Solicitor General, which files a petition
for quo warranto to question the eligibility of the
person holding the public office. As We have
emphasized in the assailed Decision, unlike
Constitutionally- protected rights, Constitutionally-
required qualifications for a public office can never
be waived either deliberately or by mere passage of
time. While a private individual may, in proper
instances, be deemed to have waived his or her right
over title to public office and/or to have acquiesced
or consented to the loss of such right, no organized
society would allow, much more a prudent court
would consider, the State to have waived by mere
lapse of time, its right to uphold and ensure
compliance with the requirements for such office,
fixed by no less than the Constitution, the
fundamental law upon which the foundations of a
State stand, especially so when the government
cannot be faulted for such lapse. (Republic vs. Sereno,
G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018)
Quo warranto under Rule 66 vs. Quo warranto

in electoral proceedings
QUO WARRANTO IN
QUO WARRANTO
ELECTORAL
UNDER RULE 66 PROCEEDINGS
The issue is legality of The issue is eligibility
the occupancy of the of the person elected.
office by virtue of a
legal appointment.
Grounds: usurpation, Grounds: ineligibility
forfeiture, or illegal or disqualification to
association. (Rules of hold the office. (OEC,
Court, Rule 66, Sec. 1) Sec. 253)
Presupposes that the Petition must be filed
respondent is already within 10 days from
actually holding office the proclamation of
and action must be the candidate.
commenced within one
year from cause of
ouster or from the time
the right of petitioner NOTE: Appointment to any vacancy shall be only
to hold office arose. for the unexpired term of the predecessor. In no
Petitioner is person Petitioner may be any case shall any Member be appointed or
entitled to office. voter even if he is not designated in a temporary or acting capacity.
entitled to the office. [1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 1(2)]
Person adjudged Actual or
entitled to the office compensatory Qualifications
may bring a separate damages are
action against the recoverable in quo 1. Natural-born citizen;
respondent to recover warranto proceedings 2. At least 35 years old at the time of
damages. (Rules of under the OEC. appointment;
Court, Rule 66, Sec. 11) 3. With proven capacity for public
administration; and
NOTE: If the dispute is as to the counting of votes or 4. Not a candidate in any election immediately
on matters connected with the conduct of the preceding the appointment. [1987
election, quo warranto is not the proper remedy but Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec 1(1)]
an election protest. (Cesar v. Garrido, G.R. No. 30705,
March 25, 1929) Disqualifications
THE CIVIL SERVICE 1. No candidate who has lost in any election

shall, within one year after such election, be
Scope appointed to any office in the Government of
The Civil Service embraces every branch, agency, any GOCC or in any of its subsidiaries; (1987
subdivision, and instrumentality of the Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 6)
government, including every government-owned 2. No elective official shall be eligible for
or controlled corporations whether performing appointment or designation in any capacity
governmental or proprietary functions. [1987 to any public office or position during his
Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(1)] tenure; [1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec.
7(1)] (1995, 2002 Bar)
Constitutional Functions of the CSC 3. Unless otherwise allowed by law or by the
primary functions of his position, no
As the central personnel agency of the appointive official shall hold any other office
government, it: or employment in the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality
1. Establishes a career service; thereof including GOCCs or their
2. Adopts measures to promote morale, subsidiaries; [1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B,
efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, Sec. 7(2)] and,
progressiveness and courtesy in the Civil 4. No officer or employee in the civil service
Service; shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any
3. Strengthens the merits and rewards system; electioneering or partisan political activity.
4. Integrates all human resources and [1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(4)]
development programs for all levels and
ranks; and Classification
5. Institutionalizes a management climate
conducive to public accountability. (1987 1. Career Service; and
Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 3) 2. Non-Career Service.
Composition of the CSC Career Service
A. Chairman; and The Career Service shall be characterized by (1)

B. Two Commissioners entrance based on merit and fitness to be
determined as far as practicable by competitive
The Chairman and the Commissioners shall be examinations, or based on highly technical
appointed by the President with the consent of qualifications; (2) opportunity for advancement
the Commission on Appointments for a term of to higher career positions; and (3) security of
seven years without reappointment. tenure.
The Career Service shall include:
7. Permanent laborers, whether skilled, semi-
1. Open Career positions are those for skilled, or unskilled.
appointment to which prior qualification in an
appropriate examination is required; Non-Career Service
2. Closed Career positions are those which are The Non-Career Service shall be characterized by
scientific or highly technical in nature; these (1) entrance on bases other than those of the
include the faculty and academic staff of state usual tests of merit and fitness utilized for the
colleges and universities, and scientific and career service; and (2) tenure which is limited to
technical positions in scientific or research a period specified by law, or which is coterminous
institutions which shall establish and maintain with that of the appointing authority or subject to
their own merit systems; his pleasure, or which is limited to the duration of
a particular project for which purpose
3. Positions in the Career Executive Service (CES), employment was made.
namely Undersecretary, Assistant Secretary,
Bureau Director, Assistant Bureau Director, The Non-Career Service shall include:
Regional Director, Assistant Regional Director,
Chief of Department Service and other officers of 1. Elective officials and their personal or
equivalent rank as may be identified by the confidential staff;
Career Executive Service Board, all of whom are 2. Department Heads and other officials of
appointed by the President; Cabinet rank who hold positions at the pleasure
of the President and their personal or confidential
NOTE: For a position to be considered as CES, staff;
a. The position must be among those 3. Chairman and members of commissions and
enumerated under Book V, Title I, boards with fixed terms of office and their
Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the personal or confidential staff;
Administrative Code of 1987 or a 4. Contractual personnel or those whose
position of equal rank as those employment in the government is in accordance
enumerated and identified by the CESB to with a special contract to undertake a specific
be such position of equal rank; and work or job, requiring special or technical skills
b. The holder of the position must be a not available in the employing agency, to be
presidential appointee. (Seneres v. accomplished within a specific period, which in
Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, October 21, no case shall exceed one year, and performs or
2015) accomplishes the specific work or job, under his
own responsibility with a minimum of direction
Requisites for a CES employee to acquire and supervision from the hiring agency; and
security of tenure: 5. Emergency and seasonal personnel.
a. CES eligibility; and Classes of positions in the Career Service

b. Appointment to the appropriate CES
rank. (Seneres v. Sabido, ibid.) a) Classes of positions in the career service
appointment to which requires examinations
4. Career officers, other than those in the Career shall be grouped into three major levels as
Executive Service, who are appointed by the follows:
President, such as the Foreign Service Officers in
the Department of Foreign Affairs; 1. The first level shall include clerical,
trades, crafts, and custodial service
5. Commissioned officers and enlisted men of the positions which involve non-professional
Armed Forces which shall maintain a separate or sub-professional work in a non-
merit system; supervisory or supervisory capacity
requiring less than four years of
6. Personnel of government-owned or -controlled collegiate studies;
corporations, whether performing governmental 2. The second level shall include
or proprietary functions, who do not fall under professional, technical, and scientific
the non-career service; and positions which involve professional,
technical, or scientific work in a non-
supervisory or supervisory capacity
requiring at least four years of college
work up to Division Chief level; and The test used to determine confidentiality of
3. The third level shall cover positions in a position. The occupant of a particular
the Career Executive Service. position could be considered a confidential
employee if the predominant reason why he
b) Except as herein otherwise provided, was chosen by the appointing authority was
entrance to the first two levels shall be the latter’s belief that he can share a close
through competitive examinations, which intimate relationship with the occupant
shall be open to those inside and outside the which ensures freedom of discussion
service who meet the minimum qualification without fear of embarrassment or
requirements. Entrance to a higher level does misgivings of possible betrayals of personal
not require previous qualification in the trust and confidential matters of State. (De
lower level. Entrance to the third level shall los Santos v. Mallare, G.R. No. L-3881, August
be prescribed by the Career Executive Service 31, 1950)
Board.
c. Highly technical – Requires technical skill
c) Within the same level, no civil service or training in the highest degree.
examination shall be required for promotion
to a higher position in one or more related NOTE: The test to determine whether the
occupational groups. A candidate for position is non-competitive is the nature of
promotion should, however, have previously the responsibilities, not the description given
passed the examination for that level. (P.D. to it. The Constitution does not exempt the
807, Art. IV) above-given positions from the operation of
the principle that “no officer or employee of
Manner of appointment to the civil service the civil service shall be removed or
suspended except for cause provided by law.”
Appointments in the civil service shall be made
only according to merit and fitness to be Q: Who may be appointed in the civil service?
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to
positions which are policy-determining, primarily A: Whoever fulfills all the qualifications
confidential, or highly technical, by competitive prescribed by law for a particular position may be
examination. [1987 Constitution, Art. IX-B Sec. appointed therein.
2(2)]
NOTE: The CSC cannot disapprove an
Principal groups of position in the Civil appointment just because another person is
Service, on the basis of appointment better qualified, as long as the appointee is
himself qualified. It cannot add qualifications
1. Competitive positions – According to merit other than those provided by law. (Cortez v. CSC,
and fitness to be determined by competitive G.R. No. 92673, March 13, 1991)
examinations, as far as practicable;
Authority to recall appointments
2. Non-competitive positions – Do not have to
take into account merit and fitness. No need The Civil Service Commission has the authority to
for competitive examinations; and recall appointments made in disregard of the
a. Policy-determining – They are tasked to applicable provisions of Civil Service Law and
formulate a method of action for the regulations. (Sales v. Carreon Jr., G.R. No. 160791,
government or any of its subdivisions. February 13, 2007)
b. Primarily confidential – Their duties are
not merely clerical but devolve upon the Q: The CSC issued a Resolution granting the
head of an office, which, by reason of his City Government of Dumaguete the authority
numerous duties, delegates his duties to to take final action on all its appointments
others, the performance of which subject to rules and regulations and within
requires skill, judgment, trust and the limits and restrictions of the
confidence implementing guidelines of the CSC
Accreditation Program as amended and
Proximity Rule subject to monthly monitoring by the Civil
Service Field Office (CSFO). On June 5, 7, and
11, 2001, Dumaguete City outgoing Mayor
Felipe Antonio B. Remollo and regularized another
promoted 15 city hall employees,
74 city hall employees, including the herein 2005 Bar)

52 petitioners. But the incoming Mayor
Perdices did not honor the appointments
made by former Mayor Remollo and he
ordered the City Administrator to direct the
City Assistant Treasurer to refrain from
making any cash disbursements for payments
of petitioners' salary differentials based on
their new positions. Further, a CSC resolution
was passed invalidating the appointments of
the employees. Is the CSC authorized to
invalidate appointments?
A: YES. In Quirog v. Aumentado, the Court held

that the ruling in De Rama v. Court of Appeals does
not mean that the raison d' etre behind the
prohibition against midnight appointments may
not be applied to those made by chief executives
of local government units. Indeed, the prohibition
is precisely designed to discourage, nay, even
preclude, losing candidates from issuing
appointments merely for partisan purposes
thereby depriving the incoming administration of
the opportunity to make the corresponding
appointments in line with its new policies.
(Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete, G.R. No. 181559,
October 2, 2009)
Security of tenure
It means that no officer or employee in the civil

service shall be suspended or dismissed except
for cause provided by law, and after due process
or after he shall have been given the opportunity
to defend himself.
NOTE: One must be validly appointed to enjoy

security of tenure. Thus, one who is not
appointed by the proper appointing authority
does not acquire security of tenure.
Once an appointment is issued and completed
and the appointee assumes the position, he
acquires a legal right, not merely an equitable
right to the position. (Lumigued v. Exevea, G.R. No.
117565, November. 18, 1997)
Regardless of the characterization of the position

held by a government employee covered by civil
service rules, be it career or non-career position,
such employee may not be removed without just
cause. (Jocom v. Regalado, G.R. No. 77373, August
22, 1991)
Bases of the constitutional guaranty of

security of tenure in the civil service (1999,
The prohibition against suspension or dismissal of
an officer or employee of the Civil Service “except for It attaches once an appointment is issued and the
cause provided by law” is “a guaranty of both moment the appointee assumes a position in the
procedural and substantive due process.” “Not only civil service under a completed appointment, he
must removal or suspension be in accordance with acquires a legal, not merely equitable, right (to
the procedure prescribed by law, but also they can the position) which is protected not only by
only be made on the basis of a valid cause provided statute, but also by the constitution, and cannot
by law.” (Land Bank of the Philippines be taken away from him either by revocation of
v. Rowena O. Paden, G.R. No. 157607, July 7, 2009) the appointment, or by removal, except for cause,
and with previous notice and hearing. (Aquino v.
Characteristic of security of tenure CSC, G.R. No. 92403, April 22, 1992)
It is the nature of the appointment that characterizes Security of tenure for Career Executive Service
security of tenure and not the nature of one’s duties (CES)
or functions.
Security of tenure in the CES is thus acquired with
Where the appointment is permanent, it is protected respect to rank and not to position. The guarantee
by the security of tenure provision. But if it is of security of tenure to members of the CES does
temporary or in an acting capacity, which can be not extend to the particular positions to which
terminated at any time, the officer cannot invoke the they may be appointed  a concept which is
security of tenure. applicable only to first and second-level
employees in the civil service  but to the rank to
NOTE: The holder of a temporary appointment which they are appointed by the President.
cannot claim a vested right to the station to which Within the CES, personnel can be shifted from one
assigned, nor to security of tenure thereat. Thus, he office or position to another without violation of
may be reassigned to any place or station. (Teotico v. their right to security of tenure because their
Agda, G.R. No. 87437, May 29, 1991) status and salaries are based on their ranks and
not on their
Attachment of security of tenure
jobs. (Seneres v. Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, October that his reassignment/transfer was not oftener than every
21, 2015) two years, among other conditions. (Seneres v. Sabido, ibid.)
Illustration: The position of NCC (National Security of tenure for non-competitive positions
Computer Center) Director General is a CES
position equivalent to Career Executive Service 1. Primarily confidential officers and employees hold office
Officer (CESO) Rank I. Seneres is already CES only for so long as confidence in them remains. If there is
eligible, but no President has yet appointed him genuine loss of confidence, there is no removal, but merely
to any CES rank (despite the previous the expiration of the term of office.
recommendation of the CESB for his 2. Non-career service officers and employees’ security of
appointment to CESO Rank I). Therefore, tenure is limited to a period specified by law, coterminous
Seneres's membership in the CES is still with the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or
incomplete. Falling short of one of the which is limited to the duration of a particular purpose.
qualifications that would complete his 3. Political appointees in Foreign Service possess tenure
membership in the CES, Seneres cannot coterminous with that of the appointing authority or
successfully interpose violation of security of subject to his pleasure.
tenure. His appointment to the position of NCC
Director General could only be construed as Instances where a transfer may be considered violative of
temporary, and he could be removed any time employee’s security of tenure
even without cause. Even assuming that he was
already conferred with a CES rank, his When the transfer is a preliminary step toward his removal, or
appointment would be permanent as to his CES a scheme to lure him away from his permanent position, or
rank only but not as to his position as NCC when it is designed to
Director General. As member of the CES, he
could be reassigned or transferred from one
position to another from one department,
bureau, or office to another provided that there
would be no reduction in his rank or salary and
indirectly terminate his service, or Q: May the courts determine the proper
force his resignation. Such a classification of a position in government? Is
transfer would in effect circumvent the position of corporate secretary in a GOCC
the provision that safeguards the primarily confidential in nature?
tenure of office of those who are in
the Civil Service. (CSC v. PACHEO, A: YES. The courts may determine the proper
G.R. No. 178021, January 25, 2012) classification of a position in government. A strict
reading of the law (E.O. 292) reveals that
NOTE: Acceptance of a temporary primarily confidential positions fall under the
appointment or assignment non-career service. The tenure of a confidential
without reservation or upon one’s employee is coterminous with that of the
own volition is deemed waiver of appointing authority, or is at the latter's pleasure.
security of tenure. (Palmera v. CSC, However, the confidential employee may be
G.R. No. 110168, August 4, 1994) appointed or remain in the position even beyond
the compulsory retirement age of 65 years.
Rules applicable to temporary
employees vis- a-vis security of Jurisprudence establishes that the Court is not
tenure bound by the classification of positions in the civil
service made by the legislative or executive
1. Not protected by security of branches, or even by a constitutional body like
tenure – can be removed the CSC. The Court is expected to make its own
anytime even without cause; determination as to the nature of a particular
2. If they are separated, this is position, such as whether it is a primarily
considered an expiration of confidential position or not, without being bound
term. But, they can only be by prior classifications made by other bodies.
removed by the one who
appointed them; and In fine, a primarily confidential position is
3. Entitled to such protection as characterized by the close proximity of the
may be provided by law. [1987 positions of the appointer and appointee as well
Constitution, Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(6)] as the high degree of trust and confidence
inherent in their relationship.
In the light of the instant controversy, the Court's and responsibilities as authorized by law
view is that the greater public interest is served if and usually accompanied by an increase
the position of a corporate secretary is classified in pay; [Revised Administrative Code of
as primarily confidential in nature. (CSC v. Javier, 1987, Title I-A, Book V, Chapter 5, Sec.
G.R. No. 173264, February 22, 2008) 26(2)]
3. Transfer – A movement from one position
PERSONNEL ACTIONS to another which is of equivalent rank,
level or salary without break in service
involving issuance of an appointment;
Any action denoting movement or progress of 4. Reinstatement – A person who has been
personnel in the civil service. (City Mayor permanently appointed to a position in
Debulgado v. CSC, G.R. No. 111471, September 26, the career service and who has, through
1994) no delinquency or misconduct, been
separated therefrom, may be reinstated
Personnel actions include to a position in the same level for which
he is qualified;
1. Appointment through Certification – It is 5. Reemployment – Persons who have been
issued to a person who has been selected appointed permanently to positions in
from a list of qualified persons certified by the career service and who have been
the Commission from an appropriate register separated as result of reduction in force
of eligible and who meets all other and or reorganization shall be entered in
requirements of the position; [Revised a list from which selection for
Administrative Code of 1987, Title I-A, Book V, reemployment shall be made; (The
Chapter 5, Sec. 26(2)] Revised Administrative Code of 1987,
2. Promotion – It is the movement from one Chapter 5, Book V, Title I-A, Sec. 26[5])
position to another with increase in duties 6. Detail – A movement of an employee from
one agency to another without issuance of an
appointment and shall be allowed, only for a such reassignment shall not involve a
limited period in the case of employees reduction in rank, status or salary; [Revised
occupying professional, technical and Administrative Code of 1987, Title I-A, Book V,
scientific positions; (The Revised Chapter 5, Sec. 26(7)]
Administrative Code of 1987, Chapter 5, Book 8. Demotion – A movement from one position to
V, Title I-A, Sec. 26[6]) another involving the issuance of an
7. Reassignment – An employee may be appointment with diminution in duties,
reassigned from one organizational unit to responsibilities, status or rank which may or
another in the same agency, provided that may not involve reduction in salary;
9. Secondment – It is the movement of an
employee from one department or agency to
another which is temporary in nature. It may
or may not require the issuance of an
appointment, and may involve an increase in
compensation and benefits. Acceptance of a
secondment is voluntary on the part of the
employee. The payment of salaries of a
seconded employee shall be borne by the
receiving agency and the seconded employee
shall be on leave without pay in his mother
agency for the duration of his secondment.
(Señeres v. Sabido, G.R. No. 172902, Oct. 21,
2015)
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary Action
It is a proceeding, which seeks the imposition of

disciplinary sanction against, or the dismissal or
suspension of, a public officer or employee on any
of the grounds prescribed by law after due
hearing.
GROUNDS
Grounds for the discipline of public officers
1. Dishonesty;
2. Oppression;
3. Neglect of duty;
NOTE: Gross neglect is such neglect which,

from the gravity of the case or the frequency
of instances, becomes so serious in its
character as to endanger or threaten the
public welfare. (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Guan, A.M. No. P-07-2293,
July 15, 2015)
4. Misconduct;
5. Disgraceful and immoral conduct;
6. Discourtesy in the course of official duties;
7. Inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties;
8. Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude; Decisionfinding petitioner guilty of grave
9. Being notoriously undesirable; misconduct. Is the petitioner correct when it
10. Falsification of official documents; contended that the CA failed to appreciate
11. Habitual drunkenness; that there was no substantial evidence to
12. Gambling; warrant the meting out of the extreme penalty
13. Refusal to perform official duty or render of dismissal from service?
overtime service;
14. Physical or mental incapacity due to immoral A: NO. Misconduct generally means wrongful,
or vicious habits; and improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
15. Willful refusal to pay just debts or willful premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. It
failure to pay taxes. is a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a
Q: The Office of the Court Administrator dereliction of duty. Qualified by the term
recommends that Cesare Sales be dismissed “gross,”it means conduct that is“ out of all
from service in the Judiciary despite his 17 measure beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful;
years length of service on the ground of such conduct as is not to be excused.” We find
habitual tardiness. The Report submitted that the evidence on record demonstrates a
shows that Sales had always been tardy in pattern of negligence and gross misconduct on
going to the office for the months of January to the part of the petitioner that fully satisfies the
September 2011. In addition, he was on standard of substantial evidence. Substantial
several sick leaves, forced leaves, and evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that
vacation leaves. On the days he was on leave, a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
he indicated in his DTRs "sick leave applied," support a conclusion. (Hallasgo v. Commission on
"vacation leave applied" or "forced leave Audit, G.R. No. 171340, September 11, 2009)
applied." In his comment, Sales admitted his
frequent tardiness in going to the office but Q: In 1993, Macario Catipon filed an
pleaded that he be given consideration by the application to take the Career Service
Court. Should Sales be dismissed from service Professional Examination (CPSE), believing
on the ground of habitual tardiness? that the CSC still allowed applicants to
substitute the length of their government
A:YES. Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 04, service for any academic deficiency which
s. 1991, an officer or employee shall be they may have. When he passed, he was later
considered habitually tardy if he is late for work, promoted to Senior Analyst and Officer-in-
regardless of the number of minutes, ten (10) Charge Branch Head of the SSS Bangued. In
times a month for at least two (2) months in a October 1995, he finally eliminated his
semester, or at least two (2) consecutive months deficiency of 1.5 units in Military Science.
during the year. In the case of Sales, he had
continuously incurred tardiness during the In 2003, he was charged with Dishonesty,
months of January to September 2011 for more Falsification of Official documents, Grave
than 10 times each month, except during the Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the
month of March when he only came in late 10 Best Interest of the Service by the CSC-CAR for
times. (Re: Habitual tardiness of Cesare Sales, MTC making deliberate false entries in his CSPE
Office of Clerk of Court, Manila, A.M. No. P-13- application. The CSC exonerated Catipon from
3171, January 28, 2014) the offense charged but found him guilty of
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of
Q: Hallasgo was the Municipal Treasurer of Service. Catipon appealed the judgment
the Municipality of Damulog, Bukidnon and directly to the Court of Appeals, but the
was accused before the Office of the Deputy petition was dismissed for violating the
Ombudsman for Mindanao of unauthorized doctrine of administrative remedies.
withdrawal of monies of the public treasury
amounting to malversation of public funds by 1. Is the CA correct?
outgoing and incumbent officials of the 2. Should Catipon be exonerated of the latter
municipality. The Office of the Ombudsman offense?
for Mindanao determined that it could not
make a complete evaluation of the issues A: 1. YES. It is the Civil Service Commission
without conducting an extensive audit. The Proper, which shall have jurisdiction over
Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao issued a decisions of Civil Service Regional Offices. It is
only
the decision of the Commission Proper that may that tarnish the image and integrity of the
be brought to the CA on petition for review, under public office, even if it not be related or
Section 50 of MC 19. Indeed, the administrative connected to the public
agency concerned is in the "best position to
correct any previous error committed in its
forum."
2. YES. Catipon was negligent in filling up his

CSPE application form and in failing to verify
beforehand the specific requirements for the
CSPE examination. The claim of good faith and
absence of deliberate intent or willful desire to
defy or disregard the rules relative to the CSPE is
not a defense as to exonerate him from the charge
of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service; under our legal system, ignorance of the
law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
(Catipon Jr. vs. Japson, G.R. No. 191787, June 22,
2015)
Q: In August 1991, the Board of Directors of

San Pablo City Water District (SPCWD) passed
separate resolutions dismissing its division
chiefs, Evelyn Eje and Racquel Tolentino, on
the basis of the administrative complaint filed
by its General Manager, Borja. Eje and
Tolentino appealed to the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) of the Civil Service
Commission (CSC), which affirmed their
dismissal from service. The case was,
thereafter, elevated to the CA which set aside
Eje and Tolentino's dismissal and awarded
them backwages an other employment
benefits. The CA, however, ruled that the
backwages could not be charged against
SPCWD, in view of the doctrine that where a
public officer removes or dismisses another
officer wrongfully, he acts outside the scope of
his authority and hence, shall be held
personally liable. Eje and Tolentino were
reinstated and paid their backwages which
were, however, taken from SPCWD's funds
upon Borja's approval. Borja and the other
officers of SPCWD were charged
administratively on the ground that they used
public funds to settle a private obligation,
considering that the said backwages and other
benefits were Borja's personal liabilities. Will
the administrative case against Borja
prosper?
A: YES. While there is no concrete description of

what specific acts constitute the offense of
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service under the civil service law and rules, it
has been jurisprudentially held to pertain to acts
officer's function. On the basis of the foregoing, the department head and finally to the Civil Service
Court holds that Borja acted in a manner prejudicial Commission and pending appeal, the same shall
to the best interest of the service. By causing SPCWD be executory except when the penalty is removal,
to pay the backwages and other benefits due to Eje in which case the same shall be executory only
and Tolentino, Borja clearly placed said office in a after confirmation by the department head. (Sec.
financial disadvantage as it was made to pay a 37, P.D. 807)
liability which did not belong to it, especially
considering that the amount involved and taken Note: Sec. 9, R.A. 4670 Magna Carta for Public
from SPCWD's funds, i.e., P1,942,031.82, is by no School Teachers provides that the committee to
means negligible. In doing so, the integrity of Borja's hear administrative charges against public school
office was put in to question, and SPCWD was placed teachers must include a representative of the
in a deleterious financial position. (Office of the teachers’ organization. The appointment by the
Ombudsman vs. Borja, G. R. No. 201830, November DECS Secretary of teachers to the committee does
10, 2015, PER, J. PERLAS-BERNABE) not comply with this requirement, as it is the
teachers’ organization which possesses the right
JURISDICTION to indicate its choice of representative in the
committee, and the DECS Secretary cannot usurp
Disciplinary Jurisdiction of Heads of ministries, such right. The inclusion of a representative of the
agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities teachers’ organization in the committee is
and municipalities indispensable to ensure an impartial tribunal.
(Fabella v. Court of Appeals G R No. 110379,
They have jurisdiction to investigate and decide November 28, 1997)
matters involving disciplinary action against officers
and employees under their jurisdiction. Their Disciplinary Jurisdiction of Civil Service
decision shall be final in case the penalty imposed is Commission
suspension of not more than 30 days or fine in an
amount not exceeding 30 days salary. In other cases, It has jurisdiction over the employees of
the decision shall be initially appealed to the Government branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies, including The Disciplining Authority is the President of the Philippines,
government-owned or -controlled corporations whether acting by himself or through the Executive Secretary.
with original charters. It has the authority to hear The Secretary of the Interior and Local Government is the
and decide administrative disciplinary cases Investigating Authority, who may act by himself or constitute an
instituted directly with it or brought to it on Investigating Committee. The Secretary of the DILG, however, is
appeal and to enforce or order execution of its not the exclusive Investigating Authority. In lieu of the DILG
decisions, resolutions or orders. (De Leon, 2014) Secretary, the Disciplining Authority may designate a Special
Investigating Committee.
Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Civil
Service Commission to hear and decide a The President as Disciplinary Authority
complaint filed by the CSC itself against
petitioners. In this case, the acts complained of The power to discipline evidently includes the power to
arose from cheating allegedly committed by the investigate. As the Disciplining Authority, the President has the
petitioners in the civil service examination. The power derived from the Constitution itself to investigate
examination was under the direct control and complaints against local government officials. A.O. No. 23,
supervision of the Commission. The culprits were however, delegates the power to investigate. The President
government employees over whom the remains the Disciplining Authority. What is delegated is the
Commission undeniably has jurisdiction. (Cruz v. power to investigate, not the power to discipline.
Civil Service Commission, G.R, No. 144464,
November 27, 2001) Note: A Presidential appointee is under the direct disciplinary
authority of the President (Villaluz v. Zaldivar, G.R. No. L-22754,
Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary December 31, 1965)
actions against elective local officials.
Jurisdiction over administrative disciplinary

actions against elective local officials is lodged in
two authorities: the Disciplinary Authority and
the Investigating Authority. (A.O. No. 23)
Availability of appeal in d. Reprimand;
administrative e. Admonition; or
disciplinary cases f. When the respondent is exonerated.
1. Appeal is available if the penalty is: NOTE: In the second case, the decision becomes
a. Demotion; final and executory by express provision of law.
b. Dismissal; or DISMISSAL, PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION,
c. Suspension for more than REINSTATEMENT AND BACK SALARIES
30 days or fine equivalent
to more than 30 day salary. Availability of the services of the Solicitor
[P.D. 807, Sec.37(a)] General
NOTE: Decisions are initially If the public official is sued for damages arising
appealable to the department heads out of a felony for his own account, the State is
and then to the CSC. Only the not liable and the Solicitor General is not
respondent in the administrative authorized to represent him therefore. The
disciplinary case, not the Solicitor General may only do so in suits for
complainant, can appeal to the CSC damages arising not from a crime but from the
from an adverse decision. The performance of a public officer’s duties. (Vital-
complainant in an administrative Gozon v. CA, G.R No. 101428, August 5, 1992)
disciplinary case is only a witness,
and as such, the latter cannot be The Office of the Solicitor General can represent
considered as an aggrieved party the public official at the preliminary investigation
entitled to appeal from an adverse of his case, and that if an information is eventually
decision. (Mendez v. CSC, G. R. No. filed against the said public official, the said Office
95575, December 23, 1991) may no longer represent him in the litigation.
(Anti-Graft League v. Ortega, G.R. No. L-33912,
2. Appeal is NOT available if the penalty is: September 11, 1980)
a. Suspension for not more than 30 days;
b. Fine not more than 30 day salary;
c. Censure; Nature of preventive suspension
Preventive suspension is not a penalty by itself; it

is merely a measure of precaution so that the Periods of preventive suspension
employee who is charged may be separated from
the scene of his alleged misfeasance while the 1. For administrative cases:
same is being investigated, to prevent him from a. Civil Service Law – 90 days
using his position or office to influence b. Local Government Code (R.A. 7160)
prospective witnesses or tamper with the i. Sec. 85: 60 days for appointive
records, which may be vital in the prosecution of officials (suspension to be imposed
the case against him. (Beja v. CA, G.R. No. 91749, by the local chief executive)
March 31, 1992) ii. Sec. 63: 60 or 90 days for elective
officials
It can be ordered even without a hearing because
this is only preliminary step in an administrative c. Ombudsman Act – six months
investigation. (Alonzo v. Capulong, et al., G.R. No.
110590, May 10, 1995) 2. For criminal cases: Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (R.A. 3019) – 90 days by
NOTE: When a public officer is charged with analogy. (Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan G.R.
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices No. 96131 September 6, 1991)
Act or R.A. 3019, a pre-suspension hearing is
required solely to determine the applicability of NOTE: Service of preventive suspension will
such law and for the accused be given a fair and not be credited to the penalty of suspension
adequate opportunity to challenge the validity of after having been found guilty because they
the criminal proceedings against him. This may are of different character. If however the
be done through various pleadings. (Torres v. preventive suspension is indefinite wherein
Garchitorena, G.R. No. 153666, December 27, his term is about to expire and suspension is
2002) not lifted such will be considered
unconstitutional for being violative of due
process of law. (Layno, Sr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. PENDING
No. L-65848, May 24, 1985) PENDING APPEAL
INVESTIGATION
Preventive suspension pending investigation Not a penalty but only a Punitive in character
vs. preventive suspension pending appeal means of enabling the
disciplinary authority
an unhampered
investigation
After the lapse of If exonerated, he
90 days, the law should be reinstated
provides that he be with full pay for the
automatically period of suspension
reinstated
During such preventive If during the appeal
suspension, the he remains
employee is not suspended and the
entitled to payment of penalty imposed is
salaries only reprimand, the
suspension pending
appeal becomes
illegal and he is
entitled to back
salary
corresponding to the
period of
suspension.
Q: Is a public officer entitled to back wages

during his suspension pending appeal when
the result of the decision from such
appeal does not amount to complete
exoneration but carries with it a certain
number of days of suspension?
A: NO. Although entitled to reinstatement, he is

not entitled to back wages during such
suspension pending appeal. Only one who is
completely exonerated or merely reprimanded is
entitled to such back wages. (Sec. of Education v.
CA. G.R. No. 128559, October 4, 2000)
Conditions before an employee may be

entitled to back salaries
1. The employee must be found innocent of the

charges; and
2. His suspension must be unjustified. (CSC v.
Cruz GR No. 187858, August 9, 2011)
NOTE: The requirement that the suspension must

be unjustified is automatically subsumed in the
other requirement of exoneration. (CSC v. Cruz GR
No. 187858, August 9, 2011)
Q: When is suspension unjustified?

If the proper penalty imposable for the offense
actually committed does not exceed one month, Good faith vs. COA disallowance
then there would have been no occasion for a
suspension pending appeal since a decision Every public official is entitled to the
imposing the penalty of suspension for not more presumption of good faith in the discharge of
than 30 days or fine in an amount not exceeding official duties, such that, in the absence of any
thirty days salary is final and not subject to proof that a public officer has acted with malice
appeal. (Book V, Section 47, par. 2 of Executive or bad faith, he should not be charged with
Order No. 292; Section 7, Rule III of Administrative personal liability for damages that may result
Order No. 7, Rules of Procedure of the Office of the from the performance of an official duty. (Lanto
Ombudsman, April 10, 1990, as amended by vs COA, G.R. No. 217189, April 18, 2017)
Administrative Order No.17, September 15, 2003
which took effect on November 19, 2003) Under the circumstances, the petitioners albeit
officials of the MWSS, were not members of the
Reinstatement and Back Salaries Board of Trustees and, as such, could not be held
personally liable for the disallowed benefits by
Guiding principles virtue of their having had no part in the approval
of the disallowed benefits. In sum, the recipients
1. Reinstatement and back salaries are of the benefits  officials and employees alike 
separate and distinct reliefs available to an were not liable to refund the amounts received
illegally dismissed public officer or for having acted in good faith due to their honest
employee; belief that the grant of the benefits had legal
2. Back salaries may be awarded to illegally basis. (Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
dismissed based on the constitutional System v. COA, G.R. No. 217189, November 21,
provision that no officer or employee in the 2017)
civil service shall be removed or suspended
except for cause provided by law; to deny CONDONATION DOCTRINE
these employees their back salaries
amounts to unwarranted punishment after The condonation doctrine connotes a complete
they have been exonerated from the charge extinguishment of liability of a public officer or
that led to their dismissal or suspension. “denying the right to remove one from office
The present legal basis for an award of because of misconduct during a prior term.”
back salaries is in Section 47, Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987; Under the new ruling, the Supreme Court simply
3. Back salaries are ordered paid to an officer finds no legal authority to sustain the
or an employee only if he is exonerated of condonation doctrine in this jurisdiction. It was a
the charge against him and his suspension doctrine adopted from one class of US rulings way
or dismissal is found and declared to be back in 1959 and thus, out of touch from – and
illegal; now rendered obsolete by – the current legal
4. If the exoneration of the employee is regime. In consequence, it is high time to abandon
relative (as distinguished from complete the condonation doctrine that originated from
exoneration), an inquiry into the factual Pascual, and affirmed in the cases following the
premise of the offense charged and of the same, such as Aguinaldo, Salalima, Mayor Garcia,
offense committed must be made. If the and Governor Garcia, Jr.
administrative offense found to have been
actually committed is of lesser gravity than Prospective application of the doctrine
the offense charged, the employee cannot
be considered exonerated if the factual The abandonment of the condonation doctrine
premise for the imposition of the lesser should be prospective in application for the
penalty remains the same. The employee reason that judicial decisions applying or
found guilty of a lesser offense may only be interpreting the laws or the Constitution, until
entitled to back salaries when the offense reversed, shall form part of the legal system of the
actually committed does not carry the Philippines. (Carpio- Morales v. CA, G.R. No.
penalty of more than one-month 217126-27, November 10, 2015, PER, J.
suspension or dismissal. (CSC v. Cruz, G.R. PERLAS-BERNABE)
No. 187858, August 9, 2011)
The condonation doctrine would not apply to
appointive officials since, as to them, there is no
sovereign will to disenfranchise. v. CA, ibid.)
(Carpio-Morales
Betrayal of public trust
IMPEACHMENT
It is a method of national inquest into the conduct

of public men. It is an extraordinary means of
removal exercised by the legislature over a
selected number of officials, the purpose being to
ensure the highest care in their indictment and
conviction and the imposition if special penalties
in case of finding a guilt, taking into account the
degree or nature of the offense committed and
the high status of the wrongdoers. (Cruz and Cruz,
Philippine Political Law, 2014)
Impeachable officers
1. President;
2. Vice-President;
3. Members of the Supreme Court;
4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
and
5. Ombudsman.
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive. (1987

Constitution, Art. XI,Sec. 2)
An impeachable officer may be ousted from office

through other means of methods, such as quo
warranto. (Republic v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428,
May, 11, 2018)
Grounds for impeachment (CTB-GOB) (1999,

2012, 2013 Bar)
1. Culpable violation of the Constitution;

2. Treason;
3. Bribery;
4. Graft and Corruption;
5. Other high crimes ; and
6. Betrayal of public trust. (1987 Constitution,
Art. XI, Sec. 2)
NOTE: The enumeration is exclusive.
Culpable violation of the Constitution
It refers to wrongful, intentional or willful

disregard or flouting of the fundamental law.
Obviously, the act must be deliberate and
motivated by bad faith to constitute a ground for
impeachment. Mere mistakes in the proper
construction of the Constitution, on which students
of law may sincerely differ, cannot be considered a
valid ground for impeachment.
This refers to “acts which are just short of being criminal 3. Initiating impeachment case
but constitute gross faithlessness against public trust, a. Verified complaint filed by any member
tyrannical abuse of power, inexcusable negligence of duty, of the House of Representatives or any
favoritism, and gross exercise of discretionary powers.” citizen upon resolution of endorsement
Acts that should constitute betrayal of public trust as to by any member thereof;
warrant removal from office may be less than criminal but
must be attended by bad faith and of such gravity and NOTE: If the verified complaint is filed by
seriousness as the other grounds for impeachment. at least 1/3 of all its members of the
(Gonzales III v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 196231, House of Representatives, the same shall
September 4, 2012) constitute the Articles of Impeachment,
and trial by the Senate shall forthwith
New ground added as a catch-all to cover all manner of proceed. [1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3
offenses unbecoming a public functionary but not (4)]
punishable by criminal statutes like:
b. Inclusion in the order of business within
1. Inexcusable negligence of duty 10 session days;
2. Tyrannical abuse of authority c. Referred to the proper committee within
3. Breach of official duty by malfesance or misfeasance, 3 session days from its inclusion;
cronyism, favorititsm, obstruction of duty. (Cruz, d. The committee, after hearing, and by
Philippine Political Law) majority vote of all its members, shall
submit its report to the House of
Steps in the impeachment process (2012 Bar) Representatives together with the
corresponding resolution;
Constituion provides that the House of Representatives e. Placing on calendar the Committee
shall have the exclusive power to inititate all cases of resolution within 10 days from
impeachment. (1987 Constitution, Art XI) submission;
f. Discussion on the floor of the report; and
g. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members G.R. No. 193459, February 15, 2011)
of the House of Representatives shall be
necessary either to affirm a favorable The Senate has the sole power to try and decide all cases of
resolution with the Articles of impeachment. [1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3(6)] Hence,
Impeachment of the committee or judgment in an impeachment proceeding is normally not
override its contrary resolution. [(1987 subject to judicial review.
Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3 (2-3)]
XPN: Courts may annul the proceedings if there is a showing of
4. Trial and Decision in impeachment a grave abuse of discretion or non- compliance with the
proceedings procedural requirements of the Constitution.
a. The Senators take an oath or affirmation;
and Determination of sufficiency of form and substance of an
impeachment complaint
NOTE: When the President of the
Philippines shall be impeached, the Chief An exponent of the express constitutional grant of rulemaking
Justice of the Supreme Court shall powers of the HoR.
preside, otherwise the Senate President
shall preside in all other cases of In the discharge of that power and in the exercise of its
impeachment. (Senate Resolution No. discretion, the House has formulated determinable standards as
890) to form and substance of an impeachment complaint.
Furthermore, the impeachment rules are clear in echoing the
b. A decision of conviction must be constitutional requirements in providing that there must be a
concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the “verified complaint or resolution” and that the substance
members of Senate. requirement is met if there is “a recital of facts constituting the
offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of
NOTE: The power to impeach is essentially a non-
legislative prerogative and can be exercised by
Congress only within the limits of the authority
conferred upon it by the Constitution. (Gutierrez
v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice,
the committee.” (Gutierrez v. House Constitution upon the initiation of
of Representatives Committee on impeachment proceedings
Justice, G.R. No. 193459, February
15, 2011) 1. The House of Representatives shall have the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of
Power of the HoR to determine impeachment; and
the sufficiency of form and 2. Not more than one impeachment proceeding
substance of an impeachment shall be initiated against the same official within a
complaint period of one year (One-year bar rule).
It is an exponent of the express NOTE: An impeachment case is the legal

constitutional grant of rulemaking controversy that must be decided by the Senate
powers of the HoR. In the discharge while an impeachment proceeding is one that is
of that power and in the exercise of initiated in the House of Representatives. For
its discretion, the House has purposes of applying the one-year bar rule, the
formulated determinable standards proceeding is initiated or begins when a verified
as to form and substance of an complaint is filed and referred to the Committee
impeachment complaint. on Justice for action. (Francisco v. House of
Furthermore the impeachment Representatives, et. al., G.R. No. 160261, November
rules are clear in echoing the 10, 2003)
constitutional requirements in
providing that there must be a The power to impeach is essentially a non-
“verified complaint or resolution” legislative prerogative and can be exercised by
and that the substance requirement Congress only within the limits of the authority
is met if there is “a recital of facts conferred upon it by the Constitution. (Francisco
constituting the offense charged v. House of Representatives, ibid) It is, by its
and determinative of the nature, a sui generis politico-legal process.
jurisdiction of the committee”. (Gonzales III v. Office of the President, G.R.196231,
(Gutierrez v. House of January 28, 2014)
Representatives Committee on
Justice, ibid.) Impeachment is deemed initiated
Limitations imposed by the A verified complaint is filed and referred to the

Committee on Justice for action. This is the
initiating step which triggers the series of steps functions and duties. Similarly, Congress
that follow. The term “to initiate” refers to the should run only one impeachment proceeding
filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with so as not to leave it with little time to attend to
Congress’ taking initial action of said complaint. its main work of law-making. (Gutierrez v. The
(Francisco v. House of Rep., G.R. No. 160261, Nov. House of Representatives Committee on Justice,
10, 2003) ibid.)
One-year bar rule (2014 Bar) Purpose of the one-year bar rule
Initiation takes place by the act of filing of the 1. To prevent undue or too frequent
impeachment complaint and referral to the harassment; and
House Committee on Justice. Once an 2. To allow the legislature to do its principal
impeachment complaint has been initiated in the task of legislation. (Francisco v. House of
foregoing manner, another may not be filed Representatives supra.)
against the same official within the one year
period. (Gutierrez v. HoR Committee on Justice, The consideration behind the intended
ibid.) limitation refers to the element of time, and
not the number of complaints. The
NOTE: The limitation refers to the element of impeachable officer should defend himself in
time, and not the number of complaints. The only one impeachment proceeding, so that he
impeachable officer should defend himself in only will not be precluded from performing his
one impeachment proceeding, so that he will not official functions and duties. Similarly,
be precluded from performing his official Congress should run only one impeachment
proceeding so as not to leave it with little time to
attend to its main work of lawmaking. The Effects of conviction in impeachment (2012
doctrine laid down in Francisco that initiation Bar)
means filing and referral remains congruent to
the rationale of the constitutional provision. 1. Removal from office;
(Gutierrez v. The House of Representatives 2. Disqualification to hold any other office
Committee on Justice, supra) under the Republic of the Philippines; and
3. Party convicted shall be liable and subject to
NOTE: Congress may look into separate prosecution, trial and punishment according
complaints against an impeachable officer and to law. [1987 Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 3 (7)]
consider the inclusion of matters raised therein,
in the adoption of the Articles of Impeachment. Q: Can a Supreme Court Justice be charged in a
(Francisco v. House of Representatives, et. al., criminal case or disbarment proceeding
supra) instead of an impeachment proceeding?
A: NO, because the ultimate effect of either is to

remove him from office, circumventing the
provision on removal by impeachment thus
violating his security of tenure. (In Re: First
Indorsement from Hon. Raul Gonzalez, A.M. No. 88-
4-5433, April 15, 1988)
An impeachable officer who is a member of the

Philippine bar cannot be disbarred first without
being impeached. (Jarque v. Desierto, A.C. No.
4509, December 5, 1995)
Judicial review in impeachment proceedings
The precise role of the judiciary in impeachment

cases is a matter of utmost importance to ensure
the effective functioning of the separate branches
while preserving the structure of checks and
balance in our government. The acts of any
branch or instrumentality of the government,
including those traditionally entrusted to the
political departments, are proper subjects of
judicial review if tainted with grave abuse or
arbitrariness. (Chief Justice v. Senate, G.R. No.
200242, July 17, 2012)
THE OMBUDSMAN
Composition:
1. The Ombudsman;
2. One overall Deputy;
3. At least one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas
and Mindanao; and
4. One Deputy for the military establishment.
(1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 5)
FUNCTIONS
1. Investigate and prosecute on its own or on

complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public officer or employee,
office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or
inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4) hereof,
cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan when circumstances so warrant and with
and, in the exercise of this primary due prudence: provided, that the
jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, Ombudsman under its rules and
from any investigatory agency of regulations may determine what cases may
Government, the investigation of such not be made public: provided, further, that
cases; (2012 Bar) any publicity issued by the Ombudsman
shall be balanced, fair and true;
2. Direct, upon complaint or at its own
instance, any officer or employee of the 7. Determine the causes of inefficiency, red
Government, or of any subdivision, agency tape, mismanagement, fraud, and
or instrumentality thereof, as well as any corruption in the Government, and make
government-owned or controlled recommendations for their elimination and
corporations with original charter, to the observance of high standards of ethics
perform and expedite any act or duty and efficiency;
required by law, or to stop, prevent, and
correct any abuse or impropriety in the 8. Administer oaths, issue subpoena and
performance of duties; subpoena duces tecum, and take testimony
in any investigation or inquiry, including
3. Direct the officer concerned to take the power to examine and have access to
appropriate action against a public officer bank accounts and records;
or employee at fault or who neglect to
perform an act or discharge a duty required 9. Punish for contempt in accordance with the
by law, and recommend his removal, Rules of Court and under the same
suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or procedure and with the same penalties
prosecution, and ensure compliance provided therein;
therewith; or enforce its disciplinary
authority as provided in Section 21 of R.A. 10. Delegate to the Deputies, or its
6770: provided, that the refusal by any investigators or representatives such
officer without just cause to comply with an authority or duty as shall ensure the
order of the Ombudsman to remove, effective exercise or performance of the
suspend, demote, fine, censure, or powers, functions, and duties herein or
prosecute an officer or employee who is at hereinafter provided;
fault or who neglects to perform an act or
discharge a duty required by law shall be a 11. Investigate and initiate the proper action
ground for disciplinary action against said for the recovery of ill-gotten and/or
officer; (2009 Bar) unexplained wealth amassed after
February 25, 1986 and the prosecution of
4. Direct the officer concerned, in any the parties involved therein; and (R.A.
appropriate case, and subject to such 6770, Sec. 15)
limitations as it may provide in its rules of
procedure, to furnish it with copies of 12. Promulgate its rules of procedure and
documents relating to contracts or exercise such other powers or perform
transactions entered into by his office such functions or duties as may be
involving the disbursement or use of public provided by law. [1987 Constitution, Art. XI,
funds or properties, and report any Sec. 13(7); see also R.A. 6770, Sec. 18]
irregularity to the Commission on Audit for
appropriate action; NOTE: The Ombudsman can investigate the acts
of the Supreme Court. (2003 Bar)
5. Request any government agency for
assistance and information necessary in the The powers of the Ombudsman are not merely
discharge of its responsibilities, and to recommendatory. His office was given teeth to
examine, if necessary, pertinent records render this constitutional body not merely
and documents; functional but also effective. Under R.A. 6770 and
the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman has the
6. Publicize matters covered by its constitutional power to directly remove from
investigation of the matters mentioned in government service an erring public official other
than a member of Congress and G.R. No. 159314, June 26, 2006)
the Judiciary. (Estarija v. Ranada,
The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall have
the rank of Chairman and Members,
Effect of charges arising from same respectively, of
act/omission lodged before the Ombudsman
and regular courts
Administrative and criminal charges filed before

the Office of the Ombudsman and the trial court,
respectively, are separate and distinct from each
other even if they arise from the same act or
omission. This is because the quantum of proof
required in criminal cases is proof beyond
reasonable doubt, while in administrative cases,
only substantial evidence is required. Moreover,
the purpose of the administrative proceedings is
mainly to protect the public service, based on the
time-honored principle that a public office is a
public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of the
criminal prosecution is the punishment of crime.
Thus, even the dismissal of a criminal case does
not necessarily foreclose the administrative
action against the respondent. (Gonzales v.
Serrano. G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015)
Ombudsman’s fiscal autonomy
The Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its

approved annual appropriations shall be
automatically and regularly released. (1987
Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 14)
Term of office
Seven years without reappointment. (1987

Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 11)
Qualifications of the Ombudsman and his

Deputies
1. Natural born citizen of the Philippines;

2. At least 40 years of age at the time of
appointment;
3. Of recognized probity and independence;
4. Member of the Philippine Bar;
5. Must not have been candidate for any elective
office in the immediately preceding election;
and
6. For the Ombudsman: He must have been for
10 years or more, a judge or engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines.
NOTE: The Ombudsman may only be removed by

impeachment.
Rank and salary

the Constitutional Commissions, and they shall disciplinary cases involving public school
receive the same salary, which shall not be decreased teachers has been modified by Sec. 9 of R.A.
during their term of office. (1987 Philippine 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School
Constitution, Art. XI, Sec. 10) Teachers) which says that such cases must
first go to a committee appointed by the
Disqualifications and inhibitions Secretary of Education; (Ombudsman v.
Estandarte, G.R. 168670, April 13, 2007)
1. Shall not hold any other office or employment;
2. Shall not engage in the practice of any profession 3. The Ombudsman Act authorizes the
or in the active management or control of any Ombudsman to impose penalties in
business which in any way may be affected by administrative cases; (Ombudsman v. CA, G.R.
the functions of his office; and No. 167844, Nov. 22, 2006; Ombudsman v.
3. Shall not be financially interested, directly or Lucero, G.R. No. 168718 November 24, 2006)
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege granted by the NOTE: According to Sec. 60 of the LGC,
government, or any of its subdivisions, etc. Shall elective officials may be dismissed only by
not be qualified to run for any office in the the proper court. “Where the disciplining
election immediately succeeding their cessation authority is given only the power to suspend
from office. (R.A. 6770, Sec. 9) and not the power to remove, it should not be
permitted to manipulate the law by usurping
Scope of powers the power to remove.” (Sangguniang
Barangay v. Punong Barangay, G.R. No.
1. The Ombudsman can investigate only officers of 170626, March 3, 2008)
government owned corporations with original
charters; (Khan, Jr v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 4. The Special Prosecutor may not file
125296, July 20, 2006) information without authority from the
Ombudsman; (Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
2. The jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over No. 166062, September 26, 2006)
5. The Ombudsman has been conferred rule without its advice and concurrence. (Carpio- Morales v.
making power to govern procedures under it; Binay, Jr., ibid.)
(Buencamino v. CA, GR 175895, April 12,
2007) Delegability of the powers of the Ombudsman
6. A preventive suspension will only last 90 The power to investigate or conduct a preliminary investigation
days, not the entire duration of the criminal on any Ombudsman case may be exercised by an investigator or
case; (Villasenor v. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman, or by any Provincial
180700, March 4, 2008) or City Prosecutor or their assistants, either in their regular
capacities or as deputized Ombudsman prosecutors. (Honasan
7. Sec 14, first paragraph, of the Ombudsman II v. Panel of Investigators of the DOJ, G.R. No. 159747, June 15,
Act, which says, “No writ of injunction shall be 2004)
issued by any court to delay an investigation
being conducted by the Ombudsman under NOTE: While the Ombudsman’s power to investigate is primary,
this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence it is not exclusive and, under the Ombudsman Act of 1989, he
that the subject matter of the investigation is may delegate it to others and take it back any time he wants to.
outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the (Acop v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 120422, September 27, 1995)
Ombudsman” is DECLARED INEFFECTIVE
until SC issues a procedural rule on the Power of the Ombudsman to directly dismiss a public
matter; and (Carpio-Morales v. CA, G.R. No. officer
217126-27, November 10, 2015)
Under Sec. 13(3) of Art. XI, the Ombudsman can only
8. Sec 14, second paragraph, of the Ombudsman recommend to the officer concerned the removal of a public
Act, which says, “No court shall hear any officer or employee found to be administratively liable.
appeal or application for remedy against the (Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 129124. March
decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except 15, 2002) Be
the Supreme Court, on pure question of law” is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL for it attempts to
effectively increase SC’s appellate jurisdiction
that as it may, the refusal, without power of the Military Deputy to investigate
just cause, of any officer to comply members of the civilian police has also been
with such an order of the affirmed. (Acop v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 120422,
Ombudsman to penalize erring September 27, 1995)
officer or employee is a ground for
disciplinary action. Thus, there is a The Ombudsman may still investigate even if
strong indication that the the private complainants lack sufficient
Ombudsman’s recommendation is personal interest in the subject matter of
not merely advisory in nature but grievance
actually mandatory within the
bounds of law. This should not be Sec 20 of R.A. 6770 has been clarified by the Rules
interpreted as usurpation of the of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ombudsman of the authority of the Under, Sec 4, Rule III thereof, even if the ground
head of office or any officer raised is the supposed lack of sufficient personal
concerned. It has long been settled interest of complainants in the subject matter of
that the power of the Ombudsman the grievance under Sect 20(4) [R.A. 6770], the
to investigate and prosecute any dismissal on that ground is not mandatory and
illegal act or omission of any public is discretionary on the part of the Ombudsman
official is not an exclusive authority, or Deputy Ombudsman evaluating the
but a shared or concurrent administrative complaint. The Ombudsman
authority in respect of the offense cannot be faulted for exercising its discretion
charged. (Ledesma v. CA, G.R. No. under Sec 20 of R.A. 6670, which allows the
161629, July 29, 2005) Ombudsman to decide not to conduct the
necessary investigation of any administrative act
Power of the Military Deputy or omission complained of, if it believes that the
Ombudsman to investigate complainant has no sufficient personal interest in
civilian police the subject matter of the grievance. (Bueno v.
Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 191712,
Since the power of the Ombudsman September 17, 2014)
is broad and the Deputy
Ombudsman acts under the Q: Can the claim of confidentiality prevent the
direction of the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman from demanding the production
of documents needed for their investigation?
A: NO. In Almonte v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 95367, May 1. Are contrary to law or regulation;
23, 1995,the Court said that where the claim of 2. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or
confidentiality does not rest in the need to protect discriminatory;
military, diplomatic or the national security 3. Are inconsistent with the general course
secrets but on general public interest in of an agency's functions, though in
preserving confidentiality, the courts have accordance with law;
declined to find in the Constitution an absolute 4. Proceed from a mistake of law or an
privilege even for the President. arbitrary ascertainment of facts;
5. Are in the exercise of discretionary
Moreover, even in cases where matters are really powers but for an improper purpose; or
confidential, inspection can be done in camera. 6. Are otherwise irregular, immoral or
devoid of justification.
JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEEDINGS In the exercise of its duties, the Ombudsman is
given full administrative disciplinary
Authority of the Ombudsman in reviewing authority. His power is not limited merely to
Administrative proceedings receiving, processing complaints, or
recommending penalties. He is to conduct
Sec. 19 of the Ombudsman Act further enumerates investigations, hold hearings, summon
the types of acts covered by the authority granted witnesses, and require production of evidence
to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall act on and place respondents under preventive
all complaints relating, but not limited to acts or suspension. This includes the power to
omissions which: impose the penalty of removal, suspension,
demotion, fine, or censure of a public officer
or employee. (Ombudsman v. Galicia, G.R. No.
167711, October 10, 2008) JUDICIAL REVIEW IN PENAL PROCEEDINGS
NOTE: Appeals from resolutions of the Office of Authority of the Ombudsman in reviewing
the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary penal proceedings
cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals via
Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of In the exercise of its investigative power, the
Court . (Fabian v. Desierto, G.R. No. 129742, Court has consistently held that courts will not
September 16, 1998) interfere with the discretion of the fiscal or the
Ombudsman to determine the specificity and
adequacy of the averments of the offense charged.
He may dismiss the complaint forthwith if he
finds it to be insufficient in form and substance or
if he otherwise finds no ground to continue with
the inquiry; or he may proceed with the
investigation of the complaint if, in his view, it is
in due and proper form. (Ocampo v. Ombudsman,
G.R. No. 103446-47, August 30, 1993)
NOTE: In Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio, G.R. No.

118141, September 5, 1997, the Court held that
“while the Ombudsman has the full discretion to
determine whether or not a criminal case is to be
filed, the Court is not precluded from reviewing
the Ombudsman’s action when there is grave
abuse of discretion.”
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
The existing Tanodbayan (at the time of the

adoption of the 1987 Constitution) shall hereafter
be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
It shall continue to function and exercise its
powers as now or hereafter provided by law,
except those conferred on the Office of the
Ombudsman created under the Constitution.
(Zaldivar v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 79690-707, October
7, 1988)
The Tanodbayan (called the Special Prosecutor

under the 1987 Constitution) is clearly without
authority to conduct preliminary investigations
and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the
Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the
Ombudsman. The right to do so was lost when the
1987 Constitution became effective on February
2, 1987. (Salvador Perez v. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. 166062, September 26, 2006)
In Orap v. Sandiganbayan, 139 SCRA 252, it was

held that the Special Prosecutor may prosecute
before the Sandiganbayan judges accused of graft
and corruption, even if they come under the
administrative supervision of the Supreme Court.
In Inting v. Tanodbayan, 97 SCRA 494, it was held
that pursuant to PD 1607, the Tanodbayan could
review and reverse the findings of the City Fiscal,
and order him to withdraw certain charges,
inasmuch as the President’s power of control (in
this instance) is exercised not by the Secretary of members of the sangguniang panlalawigan and
Justice but by the Tanodbayan because the provincial
offense/s charged were allegedly committed by a
public functionary in connection with her office.
(De Leon, 2014)
THE SANDIGANBAYAN
Sandiganbayan is a special appellate collegial

court in the Philippines. The special court was
established by P.D. No. 1486, as subsequently
modified by P.D. No. 1606 and by R.A. numbered
7975, 8249 and 10660.
Composition of the Sandiganbayan
Under P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A. 8249,

further amended by R.A. 10660, it is composed of:
1. Presiding Justice; and

2. Twenty Associate Justices, with the rank of
Justice of the Court of Appeals.
NOTE: It sits in seven divisions with three

members each.
Nature of the Sandiganbayan
Sandiganbayan is NOT a constitutional court. It is

a statutory court; that is, it is created not by the
Constitution, but by statute, although its creation
is mandated by the Constitution.
Exclusive original jurisdiction of the

Sandigabayan
1. Violations of R.A. No. 3019, as amended,

otherwise known as the Anti-graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, R.A. No. 1379, and
Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the
Revised Penal Code, where one or more of
the accused are officials occupying the
following positions in the government
whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity, at the time of the commission of the
offense:
a. Officials of the executive branch

occupying the positions of regional
director and higher, otherwise classified
as Grade '27' and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification
Act of 1989 (R.A. No. 6758), specifically
including:
i. Provincial governors, vice-governors,

treasurers, assessors, vii. Presidents, directors or trustees, or
engineers and other managers of government-owned or -
provincial department controlled corporations, state
heads; universities or educational
ii. City mayors, vice- institutions or foundations.
mayors, members of
the sangguniang b. Members of Congress and officials
panlungsod, city thereof classified as Grade'27'and and
treasurers, assessors higher under the Compensation and
engineers and other Position Classification Act of 1989;
city department heads; c. Members of the judiciary without
iii. Officials of the prejudice to the provisions of the
diplomatic service Constitution;
occupying the position d. Chairmen and members of Constitutional
of consul and higher; Commissions, without prejudice to the
iv. Philippine army and air provisions of the Constitution; and
force colonels, naval e. All other national and local officials
captains, and all classified as Grade'27'and higher under
officers of higher rank; the Compensation and Position
v. Officers of the Classification Act of 1989.
Philippine National
Police while occupying 2. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or
the position of complexed with other crimes committed by
provincial director and the public officials and employees mentioned
those holding the rank in subsection a of this section in relation to
of senior their office.
superintendent or
higher; 3. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and
vi. City and provincial in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
prosecutors and their 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
assistants, and officials
and prosecutors in the NOTE: The Regional Trial Court shall have
Office of the exclusive original jurisdiction where the
Ombudsman and information: (a) does not allege any damage to
special prosecutor; and the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges
damage
to the government or bribery arising from the Determination of the jurisdiction of the
same or closely related transactions or acts in an Sandiganbayan
amount not exceeding One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00). (R.A. 10660, Sec. 2) It shall be determined by the allegations in the
information specifically on whether or not the
NOTE: In case private individuals are charged as acts complained of were committed in relation
co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the to the official functions of the accused. It is
public officers or employees, they shall be tried required that the charge be set forth with
jointly with said public officers and employees. particularity as will reasonably indicate that
(PD 1606, Sec. 4) the exact offense which the accused is alleged
to have committed is one in relation to his
Private persons may be charged together with office. (Lacson v. Executive Secretary¸ G.R. No.
public officers to avoid repeated and unnecessary 128096, January 20, 1999)
presentation of witnesses and exhibits against
conspirators in different venues, especially if the Jurisdiction over the violation of R.A. No.
issues involved are the same. It follows therefore 9165 committed by a public official with
that if a private person may be tried jointly with Salary Grade 31 during incumbency
public officers, he may also be convicted jointly
with them. (Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. A plain reading of R.A. 9165, as of R.A. 6425,
L-58327, March 22, 1991) will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related
cases is exclusively vested with the Regional
Trial Court and no other. The clear intent of the
legislature not only to retain the "exclusive committed in relation to office. The power of the
original jurisdiction" of the RTCs over violations Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-ranking
of the drugs law but to segregate from among the government officials is not omnipotent. The
several RTCs of each judicial region some RTCs Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is circumscribed by
that will "exclusively try and hear cases involving law and its limits are currently defined in R.A.
violations of [R.A. 9165)." If at all, the change 10660.
introduced by the new phraseology of Section 90,
R.A. 9165 is not the deprivation of the RTCs' Section 4(b) of P.D. 1606, as amended by R.A.
"exclusive original jurisdiction" but the further 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the
restriction of this "exclusive original jurisdiction. Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses
The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations committed by high-ranking public officers in
of R.A. 9165 is not transferred to the relation to their office; Section 90, R.A. 9165 is the
Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's
position classified as Grade 27 or higher, jurisdiction violations of R.A. 9165 committed by
regardless of whether the violation is alleged as such public officers. In the latter case, jurisdiction
is vested upon the RTCs designated by the
Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless of
whether the violation of R.A. 9165 was committed
in relation to the public officials' office. (De Lima
v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017)
Voting requirement
All three members of a division shall deliberate

on all matters submitted for judgment, decision,
final order or resolution.
The concurrence of a majority of the members of

a division shall be necessary to render a
judgment, decision, or final order, or to resolve
interlocutory or incidental motions. (R.A. 10660,
Sec. 3)
Mandatory suspension of a public officer

against whom a valid information is filed
It is now settled that Sec. 13, R.A. 3019, makes it

mandatory for the Sandiganbayan to suspend any
public officer against whom a valid information
charging violation of that law, or any offense
involving fraud upon the government or public
funds or property is filed. (Bolastig v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110503, August 4, 1994)
NOTE: Under Sec. 13, R.A. 3019, any public officer

against whom any criminal prosecution under a
valid information under this Act or under the
provisions of the RPC on bribery is pending in
court, shall be suspended from office. Should he
be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all
retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but
if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to
reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits
which he failed to receive during suspension,
unless in the meantime administrative
proceedings have been filed against him.
Appeal from a decision of the Sandiganbayan
to the SC The provision found in Sec. 15, Art. XI of the 1987
Constitution that "the right of the State to recover
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court properties unlawfully acquired by public officials
over decisions and final orders of the or employees, from them or from their nominees
Sandiganbayan is limited to questions of law . or transferees, shall not be barred by
(Cabaron v. People, G.R. No. 156981, October 5, prescription, laches or estoppel," has already
2009) been settled in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding
Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No.
Ill-gotten wealth 130140, where the Court held that the above cited
constitutional provision "applies only to civil
Any asset, property, business enterprise or actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, and NOT
material possession of any person within the to criminal cases. (Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-
purview of Sec. 2 of R.A. 7080, acquired by him Finding Committee On Behest Loans v. Desierto,
directly or indirectly through dummies, G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011)
nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business
associates by any combination or series of the
following means or similar schemes:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion,

misuse, or malversation of public funds or
raids on the public treasury;
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage,
kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary
benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position
of the public officer concerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the
National Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
government- owned-or-controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly
or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or
any other form of interest or participation
including promise of future employment in
any business enterprise or undertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other
combinations and/or implementation of
decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests; and
6. By taking undue advantage of official
position, authority, relationship, connection
or influence to unjustly enrich himself or
themselves at the expense and to the damage
and prejudice of the Filipino people and the
Republic of the Philippines. (R.A. 7080, “An
Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder”)
Non-applicability of prescription, laches and

estoppel in criminal prosecution for the
recovery of ill-gotten wealth
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
and
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Administrative Law
It is a branch of public law fixing the organization

and determines the competence of administrative
authorities, and indicates the individual remedies
for the violation of the rights. [Administrative
Code, Sec. 2(3)]
GR: The Revised Administrative Code is the

principal text that governs this branch of law. The
Code, however, does not cover the military as
long as it deals with purely military affairs. They
are governed by the Articles of War.
XPN: If it deals with their relationship with the

Civilians, still governed by the Administrative
Code.
Other institutions excluded:
1. Board of Pardons and Parole;

2. State Universities and Colleges; and
3. Highly Urbanized Cities.
Administration
1. As an institution–It refers to the group or

aggregate of persons in whose hands the
reins of government are for the time being.
2. As a function –It pertains to the execution, in

non-judicial matters, of the law or will of the
State as expressed by competent authority.
(Nachura, Ouline Reviewer in Political Law, p.
493)
Scope:
1. Fixes the administrative operation and

structure of the government;
2. Executes or enforces that which is entrusted
to administrative authorities (all those public
officers and organs of the government
charged with the amplification, application
and execution of the law);
3. Governs public officers and creates
administrative officers;
4. Provides remedies to those aggrieved by
these agencies;
5. Governs Judicial Review;
6. Includes rules, regulation, orders and
decisions made by administrative authorities;
POLITICAL LAW
and regulations of such administrative
7. Includes the body of judicial doctrines
ADMINISTRATIVE LAWon any of authorities;
the above.
3. Rules, and the promulgation of
Classifications: regulations, or rules and regulations to
orders of such better carry out the policy
As to Source administrative of the legislature or such as
authorities in are devolved upon the
pursuance of the administrative agency by
Law that Law made by the purposes, for the organic law of its
controls administrative which existence. (In re: Rodolfo U.
administrative authorities administrative Manzano, A.M. No. 88- 7-
authorities authorities were 1861-RTC, October 5, 1988)
General regulations created or
Constitution, statutes, and particular endowed; and Powers of administrative
judicial decisions, determinations; agencies
Executive Orders, constitute under e.g. Omnibus
Administrative delegations of power Rules 1. Discretionary – The law
Orders, etc. embodied in Implementing imposes a duty upon a
statutory the Labor Code, public officer, and
administrative law, circulars of gives him the right to
and imposing and Central decide how or when
constantly expanding Monetary the duty shall be
body of law. Authority. performed; and
As to Purpose 2. Ministerial – One which
Adjective or 4. Determinations, is as clear and specific
Substantive decisions, and as to leave no room for
Procedural
Administrative orders of such the exercise of
Administrat
Law administrative discretion in its
i
ve Law authorities in performance.
Establishes the the settlement
procedure which an Derived from same of controversies Basic powers of
agency must or may sources but contents arising in their administrative agencies
follow in the pursuit are different in that particular field.
of its legal purpose. the law establishes 1. Quasi-legislative
primary rights and e.g. Awards of power or
duties. NLRC with rule-making power;
respect to 2. Quasi-judicial or
As to Applicability money claims of adjudicatory power;
Special/ employees. and
General (Nachura, 3. Determinative power.
Particular
Administrat Outline Reviewer
Administrat
i ve Law in Political Law,
i Quasi-legislative vs. Quasi-
ve Law p. 493) judicial power
Part that is of general Part that pertains to
nature and common particular service; POWERS OF QUASI-LEGISLATIVE QUASI-J
to all, or most, proceeds from the ADMINISTRATIVE Operates on the future. Operates b
administrative particular statute AGENCIES past facts.
agencies; chiefly but creating the General application. Particular
not exclusively individual agency. Administrative (applies on
procedural law. power or function parties inv
May be assailed in Only be ch
Involves the court without court with
Kinds: regulation and subscribing to the exhaustion
control over the
1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities; conduct and affairs
2. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the of individuals for
creation, operation, and effect of determinations their own welfare
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
s, or at least Limita administ
Doctrine of Exhaustion two of such tions rative
of Administrative functions. to the agencies;
Remedies (DEAR). exerci 2. Cannot
Does not require prior QUASI-LEGISLATIVE (RULE- se of make
notice and hearing MAKING) POWER quasi- rules or
(except when the law legisla regulatio
requires it). The exercise of tive ns which
May be assailed in delegated power are
court through an legislative inconsist
ordinary action. power, 1. Wi ent with
involving no thi the
discretion as to n provision
Non- what the law th of the
similari shall be, but e Constitut
ty of merely the li ion or
functio authority to fix mi statute;
ns and the details in ts 3. Cannot defeat the
powers the execution of purpose of the statute;
of or enforcement th 4. May not
adminis of a policy set e amend,
trative out in the law po alter,
agencie itself. (Nachura, we modify,
s Outline rs supplant,
Reviewer in gr enlarge,
Not all Political Law, p. an or limit
administ 494) te the terms
rative d of the
agencies It is the power to statute;
perform to make rules
the same and regulations 5. A rule or regulations.
function which results in regulation The term
s or delegated must be includes
exercise legislation that uniform in memoranda or
the is within the operation, statements
types of confines of the reasonable concerning the
powers. granting statute and not internal
While and the unfair or administration
some act doctrine of non- discriminat or
merely delegability and ory. management
as separation of of an agency
investig powers. (Holy Administrative not affecting
ative or Spirit rule the rights of,
advisory Homeowners or procedure
bodies, Association vs. Any agency available to
most Secretary statement of the public.
administ Defensor, G.R. general [Administrativ
rative No. 163980, applicability, e Code of 1987,
agencies August 3, 2006) which Sec. 2 (2)]
have implements or
investig Legislative vs. Quasi- interprets a law Source of the
ative, legislative power fixes and power to
rule- describes promulgate
making, LEGISLATIVE QUASI procedures in, administrativ
and Determine what the Determine how the or practice e rules and
determi law shall be requirements of,
law shall be enforced. regulations
native Cannot be delegated. Can be delegated. an agency,
function including its Derived from
POLITICAL LAW
the legislature, by regulati Strategic
virtue of a valid on Environment Administrative
delegation, either should Plan (SEP) for Order No. 00-05
express or be Palawan was issued. Said
implied. german pursuant to Order provided
e to the which that only
Doctrine of objects accredited
Subordinate and domestic air
Legislation purpose carriers shall be
s of the allowed to
Power of law; and operate as
administrative (2) That the ‘common
agency to regulati carriers’
promulgate rules on be licensed under
and regulations not in said rule.
on matters within contradi Respondent
their own ction assails the
specialization. with it, validity of A.
but O. No. 00-05 on
Reason behind conform the ground that
the delegation s to the it was issued in
standar excess of
It is well ds that petitioner’s
established in this the law authority as an
jurisdiction that, prescrib administrative
while the making es. agency. Was
of laws is a non- (People respondent’s
delegable activity of the contention
that corresponds Philippi valid?
exclusively to nes v.
Congress, Exconde A: NO.
nevertheless the , G.R. Petitioner’s
latter may No. L- issuance of the
constitutionally 9820, assailed order
delegate authority August was well within
to promulgate 30, its statutory
rules and 1957) authority.
regulations to Administrative
implement a given Q: Respondent agencies possess
legislation and was an two kinds of
effectuate its operator of a powers, the quasi-
policies, for the domestic air legislative or rule-
reason that the carrier making power,
legislature often primarily that and the quasi-
finds it of transporting judicial or
impracticable (if live fish from administrative
not impossible) to Palawan to fish adjudicatory
anticipate and traders. power. The first is
provide for the Petitioner is the power to
multifarious and the make rules and
complex government regulations
situations that agency resulting from a
may be met in responsible for valid delegated
carrying the law the legislation that is
into effect. All that governance, within the
is required is that: implementatio confines of the
n, and policy granting statute
(1) The direction of the and in accord
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
with the doctrine of respective Mineral the Philippines and can adjudicate on the
non-delegability and Production abroad. The OP contract’s own validity.
separability of Sharing finding, inter alia, Thus, absent the OP’s
powers. The second is Agreements that petitioners proper exercise of a quasi-
the power to hear (MPSAs) and/or misrepresented judicial function, the CA had
and determine Exploration that they were no appellate jurisdiction
questions of fact to Permits (EPs) Filipino over the case, and its
which the legislative applications corporations Decision is, perforce, null
policy is to apply and before the Panel qualified to engage and void. (Narra Nickel
to decide in of Arbitrators in mining activities, Mining And Development
accordance with the (POA) of the cancelled and/or Corporation vs. Redmont
standards laid down DENR- MGB. revoked the said Consolidated Mines
by the law itself in Redmont's FTAA, and, in turn, Corporation, G.R. No.
enforcing and primary argument gave due course to 202877, December 09,
administering the was that Redmont's EP 2015, PER, J. PERLAS-
same law. Petitioner petitioners were application. On BERNABE)
appeal, the CA
KINDS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES AND affirmed the
REGULATIONS decision of OP. 1. Supplementary or
had the explicit all controlled by Whether the CA detailed legislation;
authority to fill in the their common correctly affirmed 2. Interpretative
details as to how to majority on appeal the OP's legislation;
carry out or stockholder, cancellation 3. Contingent legislation-
effectively implement MBMI Resources, and/or revocation Issued upon the
the objectives of R.A. Inc. (MBMI) - a of the FTAA? happening of a certain
No. 7611 in 100% Canadian- contingency which the
protecting and owned A: NO. Quasi-judicial administrative body is
enhancing Palawan's corporation - and, or administrative given the discretion to
natural resources thus, disqualified adjudicatory power determine;
consistent with the from being is the power of the 4. Procedural;
SEP. In fact, the grantees of MPSAs administrative 5. Internal; and
petitioner was and/or EPs. agency to 6. Penal.
expressly given the Meanwhile, adjudicate the
authority to impose Redmont rights of persons Administrative issuances
penalties and separately sought before it. The OP’s according to their nature
sanctions in relation the cancellation cancellation and/or and substance:
to the and/or revocation revocation of the
implementation of of the executed FTAA is an exercise 1. Legislative Rule – It is
the SEP and the other FTAA through a of a contractual in the matter of
provisions of R.A. No. Petition filed right that is purely subordinate legislation,
7611. (The Palawan before the Office administrative in designed to implement
Council for of the President nature , and thus, a primary legislation by
Sustainable (OP). Redmont cannot be treated as providing the details
Development v. asserted, among an adjudication. thereof; and
Ejercito Lim, G.R. No. others, that the Being a government 2. Interpretative rule –
183173, August 24, FTAA was highly or public contract, Provides guidelines to
2016) anomalous and the FTAA is subject the law which the
irregular, to fundamental administrative agency
Q: Redmont filed on considering that contract principles, is in
January 2, 2007 petitioners and one of which is the
three (3) separate their mother principle of
petitions for the company, MBMI, mutuality of
denial of Petitioner have a long contracts which
Narra Nickel's history of would definitely be
violating and violated if one were
to accept the view
circumventing the other laws, due to their that the OP, a
Constitution and questionable activities in contracting party,
POLITICAL LAW
cha neral r prior to
rge circulatio u the
of n, as l adoptio
enf provided e n of any
orci in s rule.
ng. Executive a [1987
(BP Order No. n Adminis
I 200 d trative
Lea a Code,
sing Required ff Adminis
v. as a o trative
CA, condition r Procedu
G.R. precedent d re, Sec.
No. to the i 9(1)]
127 effectivity n (2000,
624 of a law to t 2009
, inform the e Bar)
Nov public of r
em the e Excepti
ber contents s ons to
18, of the law t the
200 or rules e require
3) and d ment of
regulation p publica
s before a tion
their r
REQUISITES FOR rights and ti 1. Interpretative
VALIDITY interests e regulations;
are s 2. Internal
1. Issued under affected t regulations; and
authority of law; by the h 3. L
2. Within the scope same. e e
and purview of (Philippin o tt
the law; e p e
3. It must be Internatio p r
reasonable; nal o s
4. Pu Trading r o
bli Corporati t f
on v. COA, u i
cat
G.R. No. n n
ion
132593, it s
in
y t
the June 25,
r
Off 1999) t
u
ici o
c
al NOTE: If s ti
Ga not u o
zet otherwise b n
te required m s.
or by law, an it (
in agency t T
a shall, as h a
ne far as e ñ
ws practicabl ir a
pa e, publish v d
pe or i a
r circulate e v
of notices of w .
ge proposed s T
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
u ed not 2 istrative
v comply 0 rule
e with the 0 goes
r requireme 6 beyond
a nts of ) merely
notice and providi
G hearing, T ng for
. in the h the
R performa e means
. nce of its a that can
executive d facilitat
N or m e or
o legislative i render least
. functions, n cumber
such as some the
L issuing
- implement ed in
rules and
6 ation of the the
regulation
3 law but Officia
s. (Corona
9 substantial l
1 v. United
ly adds to Gazett
5 Harbor
or e or in
, Pilots
increases a
Associatio
the burden newsp
D n of the
of those aper
e Philippine
governed. of
c s, G.R. No.
(CIR v. CA, gener
e 111963,
G.R. No. al
m December
11976, circul
b 12, 1997)
August 26, ation.
e
1996) (Hon.
r XPNs: The
Secret
legislature
2 Additional ary
itself
9 requisites for Perez
requires it
, administrative v. LPG
and
rules and Refille
mandates
1 regulations rs
that the
9 with penal Associ
regulation
8 sanctions ation
shall be
6 of the
based on
) Requisites to be Philip
certain
complied with: pines,
facts as
5. Necessity for G.R.
determine
notice and 1. Law No.
d at an
hearing must 15914
appropria
declare 9,
te
GR the act June
investigati
: punisha 26,
on. (Hon.
An ble; 2006)
Executive
ad Secretary 2. Law
mi must Requisites for
v.
nis define a valid
Southwing
tra the delegation of
Heavy
tiv penalty; quasi-
Industries,
e and legislative or
Inc., G.R.
bo 3. Rules rule-making
No.
dy must be power
164171,
ne August 22, publish
1. Completen
POLITICAL LAW
ess Test - The provisions of the
statute is Constitution or a be enforced. Administrative
complete in statute, (Administrative Interpretations
itself, setting particularly the Code of 198, Sec. 3; to Courts
forth the statute it is GMA v. MTRCB, G.R.
policy to be administering or No. 148579, They are not
executed by which created it, February 5, 2007) binding upon the
the agency; or which are in courts. However,
and derogation of, or Effectivity of they are given
2. Sufficient defeat, the administrative rules great weight
Standard Test purpose of a unless such
- Statute fixes statute. (Dagan GR: Administrative construction is
a standard, v. Philippine rules take effect clearly shown to
mapping out Racing depending on the be in sharp
the Commission G.R. date provided by it. contrast with the
boundaries of No. 175220, governing law of
the agency’s February 12, XPN: If the the state. (Nestle
authority to 2009) administrative rule Philippines Inc. v.
which it must is silent on the CA, G.R. No.
conform. Filing of copies matter of its date of 86738, November
of effectivity, it shall 13, 1991)
It lays down a administrative take effect after 15
sufficient rules and days following the QUASI-JUDICIAL
standard when it regulations completion of their (ADJUDICATORY)
provides adequate before the publication. POWER
guidelines or UPLC
limitations in the Authority of Power of
law to map out Each agency Administrative administrative
the boundaries of must file with Officers to authorities to
the delegate’s the Office of the Interpret the Law make
authority and National determinations of
prevent the Administrative Tasked to facts in the
delegation from Register (ONAR) implement the law performance of
running riot. To of the University and authorized to their official
be sufficient, the of the interpret it because duties and to
standard must Philippines Law they have the apply the law as
specify the limits Center three expertise to do so. they construe it to
of the delegate’s certified copies the facts so found.
authority, of every rule Contemporaneous It partakes the
announce the adopted by it. Construction nature of judicial
legislative policy Administrative power, but
and identify the issuances which The construction exercised by a
conditions under are not placed upon the person other than
which it is to be published or statute by an a judge.
implemented. filed with the executive or
(ABAKADA Guro ONAR are administrative The proceedings
Party List v. ineffective and officer called upon partake of the
Purisima, G.R. No. may not to execute or character of
166715, August administer such judicial
14, 2008) statute. proceedings.
Administrative
The Usually in the form body is normally
administrative of circulars, granted the
body may not directives, authority to
make rules and opinions, and promulgate its
regulations which rulings. own rules of
are inconsistent procedure,
with the Effect of provided they do
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
not increase, Reviewer in Political
diminish or modify Law, p. 504) e.g. quires
substantive rights, , producti
and subject to Limited jurisdiction Po on of
disapproval by the of quasi-judicial we books,
Supreme Court. agencies r papers,
(Nachura, Outline to etc., and
compliance with the law ap the
and are often exercised poi attendan
An administrative for corrective purposes. nt ce of
body could wield only e.g., public utility a witnesse
such powers as are commissions, powers of rec s and
specifically granted to assessment under the eiv compelli
it by its enabling revenue laws, reparations er, ng the
statute. Its jurisdiction under public utility laws, po testimon
is interpreted and awards under we y.
strictissimi juris. workmen’s compensation r
laws, and powers of to ADMINISTRATIVE
Conditions for the abstract determination iss DUE PROCESS
Proper Exercise of such as definition- ue
Quasi- Judicial valuation, classification inj Nature of administrative
Power and fact finding. un proceedings
cti
1. Jurisdiction must 3. Dispensing powers – on It is summary in nature.
be properly Exempt from or relax a s
acquired by the general prohibition, or Inapplicabilit
administrative authority to relieve from 6. Ex y of technical
body; and an affirmative duty. a rules of
2. Due process must m procedure
e.g., authority of zoning
be observed in the in and evidence
boards to vary provisions
conduct of the in in
of zoning ordinances, or
proceedings. g administrati
the authority of the
Acceptance Board of the po ve
Classifications of w proceedings
Philippine Army to
Adjudicatory Powers er
relieve certain persons
from military training. s– The technical
1. Enabling powers – T rules of
Permits the doing hi procedure
4. Summary powers – Apply
of an act which s and of
compulsion or force
the law is evidence
against person or
undertakes to al prevailing in
property to effectuate a
regulate and so courts of law
legal purpose without a
which would be ca and equity
judicial warrant to
unlawful without lle are not
authorize such action.
governmental d controlling in
e.g., Abatement of
orders. It is as administrativ
nuisance, summary
characterized by in e
restraint, levy of property
the grant or denial ve proceedings
of delinquent taxpayers
of permit or sti to free
authorization. e.g., g administrativ
5. Equitable powers – The
Issuance of at e boards or
power to determine the
licenses to engage or agencies
law upon a particular
in a particular y from the
state of facts that has the
business. po compulsion
right to, and must,
2. Directing powers – w of technical
consider and make
Orders the doing er rules so that
proper application of the
or performing of . the mere
rules of equity.
particular acts to Re admission of
ensure the
POLITICAL LAW
matter port in No. L-
which thereof; vo 46496,
would 2. The lv February
be tribunal ed 27, 1940)
deemed must an
incomp consider d NOTE: The
etent in the th essence of
judicial evidence e due process
proceed presented; re in
ings 3. The decision must be as administrativ
would supported by evidence; on e
not 4. Such evidence must be s proceedings
invalida substantial; fo is the
te an 5. The r opportunity
adminis decision th to explain
trative must be e one’s side or
order. rendered de seek a
on the ci reconsiderati
Cardina evidence si on of the
l presented on action or
require at the re ruling
ments hearing or nd complained
of due at least er of. As long as
process contained ed the parties
in in the . are given the
admini record, and (A opportunity
strative disclosed n to be heard
procee to the g before
dings parties Ti judgment is
(1994 affected; b rendered, the
Bar) 6. The ay demands of
tribunal or v. due process
1. Rig body or CI are
ht any of its R, sufficiently
to a judges G. met. What is
hea must act on R. offensive to
ring its own
whi independe due process is may result in a
ch nt the denial of the failure to
incl considerati opportunity to acquire
ude on of the be heard. jurisdiction.
s law and (Flores v.
the facts of the Montemayor, NOTE: Right to
righ controvers G.R. No. 170146, notice may be
t to y in June 6, 2011) waived.
pre arriving at
sent a decision; Effect of non- Necessity of
one’ 7. The board observance of Notice and
s or body notice and Hearing
cas should hearing
e render A hearing may
and decision in As a rule, it will take place
sub such a invalidate the after the
mit manner administrative deprivation
evid that parties proceedings. A occurs. What
enc can know failure to the law
e in the various comply with the prohibits is
sup issues requirements not the
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
absence of businesses counsel, as
previous notice affecting recognized by suspect in a
but the absolute public order the Constitution, custodial
absence thereof or morals; is a right of a investigation. It is
and the lack of 4. Summary not an absolute
opportunity to be abatement right and may,
heard. of nuisance thus, be invoked
per se which or rejected in
NOTE: There has affects criminal
been no denial of safety of proceeding and,
due process if any persons or with more reason,
irregularity in the property; in an
premature 5. Preventive administrative
issuance of the suspension inquiry.
assailed decision of public (Lumiqued v.
has been officer or Exevea, G.R No.
remedied by an employee 117565,
order giving the facing November 18,
petitions the right administrati 1997)
to participate in ve charges;
the hearing of the 6. Cancellation Quantum of
MR. The of a proof required
opportunity passport of in
granted by, a person administrative
technically, sought for proceedings
allowing criminal
petitioners to prosecution; Substantial
finally be able to 7. Summary evidence – that
file their comment proceedings amount of
in the case, of distraint relevant evidence
resolves the and levy that a reasonable
procedural upon mind might
irregularity property of accept as
previously a delinquent adequate to
inflicted upon taxpayer; support a
petitioners. 8. Replacemen conclusion.
(Nasecore v. ERC, t of a
G.R. No. 190795, temporary ADMINISTRATIV
July 6, 2011) or acting E APPEAL AND
appointee; REVIEW
Exceptions to the and
requirement of 9. Right was Administrative
notice and previously appeal
hearing offered but
not claimed. It includes the
1. Urgency of review by a
immediate Inapplicability higher agency of
action; of the right to decisions
2. Tentativeness counsel in rendered by an
of administrative administrative
administrativ inquiries agency,
e action; commenced by
3. Grant or The right to petition of an
revocation of counsel which interested party.
licenses or may not be
permits to waived, unless NOTE: Under the
operate in writing and in 1987
certain the presence of Administrative
POLITICAL LAW
Code, administrative 2. Statutes which 2. Through the such as the COA, are
appeals from a provide for court’s generally accorded respect
decision of an agency determination intervention. and even finality by this
are taken to the to be made by a Court, if supported by
Department Head, particular substantial evidence, in
unless such appeal is officer or body recognition of their
governed by a special subject to ADMINISTRATIVE expertise on the specific
law. appeal, review RES JUDICATA matters under their
or jurisdiction. (Reyna v. COA,
Administrative review redeterminatio Non-applicability of G.R. No. 167219, February 8,
n by another the doctrine of res 2011)
judicata
FACT-FINDING, INVESTIGATIVE, LICENSING,
AND RATE-FIXING POWERS The doctrine of res Fact-finding power
A superior officer or officer or body judicata applies only
department head, in the same to judicial or quasi- a. Power to declare the
upon his or her own agency or in the judicial proceedings existence of facts
volition, may review same and not to the which call into
the decision of an administrative exercise of purely operation the
administrative system; administrative provisions of a
agency or that of a 3. The statute functions. statute; and
subordinate’s makes or Administrative b. Power to ascertain
decision pursuant to attempts to proceedings are and determine
the power of control. make a court a non-litigious and appropriate facts as a
part of the summary in nature; basis for procedure in
It is, however, subject administrative hence, res judicata the enforcement of
to the caveat that a scheme by does not apply. particular laws.
final and executory providing in (Nasipit Lumber
decision is not terms or effect Company, Inc. v. NOTE: The mere fact that
included within the that the court, NLRC, G.R. No. an officer is required by
power of control, and on review of 54424, August 31, law to inquire the
hence can no longer the action of an 1989) existence of certain facts
be altered by administrative and to apply the law
administrative agency; Exceptions to the thereto in order to
review. 4. The statute Non-Applicability determine what
provides that of Res Judicata in
Different kinds of an order made Administrative
administrative by a division of Proceedings
appeal and review a commission
or board has 1. Naturalization
1. Inheres in the the same force proceedings or
relation of and effect as if those involving
administrative made by the citizenship and
superior to subject to a immigration;
administrative rehearing by 2. Labor relations;
subordinate; the and
commission; 3. Decisions
affecting family
5. The statute level namely, the relations,
provides for an president. (De Leon, personal status
appeal to an Administrative Law: Text or condition,
officer on an and Cases (2010) page and capacity of
appeal to the head 311) persons.
of the department
or agency; Enforcement of NOTE: It is well
6. Statutes which Administrative Decisions settled that findings
provide for appeal of fact of quasi-
at the highest 1. As provided for by law; or judicial agencies,
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
his factual to take Investigatory power
official findings is into
conduct irregular; consid Power to
shall be 3. Palpable errors are eration inspect,
does not committed; the secure, or
affect 4. Factual findings not result require the
private supported by evidence; of its disclosure of
rights do 5. Grave own information
not abuse of observ by means of
constitut discretion, ation accounts,
e an arbitrarine and records,
exercise ss, or investi reports,
of capriciousn gation statements
judicial ess is of the and
manifest;
powers. matter testimony of
6. When expressly allowed
(Lovina submit witnesses. It
by statute; and
v. ted to is implied and
7. Error in
Moreno, it for not inherent
appreciatio
G.R. No. decisio in
n of the
L-17821, n, in administrativ
pleadings
Novemb connec e agencies.
and in the
er 21, tion
interpretati
1963) with Power to
on of the
documenta other issue
Excepti ry evidence eviden subpoena
ons to presented ce not inherent
the rule by the presen in
that parties. ted at administrati
findings the ve bodies
of facts hearin
Fact-finding quasi-judicial
of g of the It is settled
body
adminis case. that these
trative (Pantr bodies may
A fact-finding
agencie anco summon
quasi-judicial
s are South witnesses
body (e.g., Land
binding Expres and require
on the Transportation
Franchising and s, Inc. v the
courts Board production of
Regulatory
Board) whose of evidence only
1. Find Transp when duly
ings decisions (on
questions ortatio allowed by
are n, G.R. law, and
vitia regarding
certificate of No. L- always only
ted
public 49664, in connection
by
frau convenience) Novem with the
d, are influenced ber 22, matter they
imp not only by the 1990) are
ositi facts as authorized to
on, disclosed by the investigate.
or evidence in the
collu Power to cite a expressly
case before it
sion; person in conferred
but also by the
2. Proc contempt not upon the body,
reports of its
edur inherent in and
field agents and
e administrative additionally,
inspectors that
whic bodies must be used
are periodically
h led only in
submitted to it,
to It must be connection
has the power
POLITICAL LAW
with its quasi- franchise, or pertinent laws,
judicial as certificate of rules and and hearing.
distinguished public regulations or [1987
from its purely convenience and when public Administrative
administrative or necessity. security, health, Code,
routinary or safety Administrative
functions. License requires Procedure, Sec.
otherwise, no 17(2)]
NOTE: If there is Includes the license may be
no express grant, whole or any withdrawn, Nature of an
the agency must part of any suspended, administrative
invoke the aid of agency’s permit, revoked or agency’s act if it
the RTC under certificate, annulled is empowered by
Rule 71 of the passport, without notice a statute to
Rules of Court. clearance, revoke a license
approval, for non-
Q: May registration, compliance or
administrative charter, violation of
agencies issue membership, agency
warrants of statutory regulations
arrest or exemption or
administrative other form of Where a statute
searches? permission, or empowers an
regulation of the agency to revoke
A: GR: NO. Under exercise of a a license for non-
the 1987 right or compliance with
Constitution, only privilege. [1987 or violation of
a judge may issue Administrative agency
warrants. Code, regulations, the
Administrative administrative act
XPN: In cases of Procedure, Sec. is of a judicial
deportation of 2(10)] nature, since it
illegal and depends upon the
undesirable Licensing ascertainment of
aliens, whom the the existence of
President or the It includes certain past or
Commissioner of agency process present facts
Bureau of involving the upon which a
Immigration and grant, renewal, decision is to be
Deportation may denial, made and rights
order arrested revocation, and liabilities
following a final suspension, determined.
order of annulment,
deportation. withdrawal, Rate
(Salazar v. limitation,
Achacoso, G.R. No. amendment, It means any
81510, March 14, modification or charge to the
1990) conditioning of a public for a
license. [1987 service open to all
Licensing power Administrative and upon the
Code, same terms,
The action of an Administrative including
administrative Procedure, Sec. individual or joint
agency in granting 2(11)] rates, tolls,
or denying, or in classification or
suspending or NOTE: Except in schedules thereof,
revoking, a cases of willful as well as
license, permit, violation of communication,
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
mileage, kilometrage legislature may deal delagata non delegari potest.
and other special directly with these Standard required (Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor
rates which shall be subjects, it has been on delegated Center v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No.
imposed by law or found more power to fix rates 115381, December 23, 1994)
regulation to be advantageous to
observed and place the It is required that
followed by a person. performance of the rate be
[1987 Administrative these functions in reasonable and just.
Code, Administrative some (American Tobacco
Procedure, Sec. 2(3)] administrative Co. v. Director of
agency. The need Patents, G.R. No. L-
Rate-fixing power for dispatch, for 26803, October 14,
flexibility and 1975)
It is the power technical know-
usually delegated by how is better met In any case, the rates
the legislature to by entrusting the must both be non-
administrative rate-fixing to an confiscatory and
agencies for the agency other than must have been
latter to fix the rates the legislature established in the
which public utility itself. (Cortes, 1963) manner prescribed
companies may by the legislature.
charge the public. Rate-fixing Even in the absence
procedure of an express
NOTE: The power to requirement as to
fix rates is essentially The administrative reasonableness, this
legislative but may agencies perform standard may be
be delegated. this function either implied. A rate-fixing
(Philippine Inter- by issuing rules and order, though
Island v. CA, G.R. No. regulations in the temporary or
100481, January 22, exercise of their provisional it may
1997) quasi-legislative be, is not exempt
power or by issuing from the procedural
The legislature may orders affecting a requirements of
directly provide for specified person in notice and hearing
these rates, wages, or the exercise of its when prescribed by
prices. But while the quasi-judicial statute, as well as
power. the requirement of
reasonableness.
NOTE: In the fixing of The law delegating the power (Philippine
rates, no rule or final to determine some facts or Communications
order shall be valid state of things upon which Satellite Corporation
unless the proposed the law may take effect or its v. NTC, G.R. No.
rates shall have been operation suspended must 84818, December 18,
published in a provide the standard, fix the 1989)
newspaper of general limits within which the
circulation at least two discretion may be exercised, Re-delegating
weeks before the first and define the conditions power to fix rates is
hearing thereon. therefor. Absent these prohibited
[1987 Administrative requirements, the law and the
Code, Administrative rules issued thereunder are The power delegated to
Procedure,Sec. 9(2)] void, the former being an an administrative
(2000, 2009 Bar) undue delegation of agency to fix rates
legislative power and the cannot, in the absence
Requirements for latter being the exercise of of a law authorizing it,
the delegation of the rule- making without legal be delegated to
power to ascertain basis. (U.S. v. Ang Tang Ho, another. This is
factsPOWER
to be valid
TO FIX G.R.TO
POWER No.FIX
L-17122,
RATE February 27, expressed in the
RATES EXERCISED 1992)
EXERCISED AS A maxim, potestas
AS A LEGISLATIVE QUASI-JUDICIAL
FUNCTION FUNCTION
POLITICAL LAW
of that question is advantag
Rules and/or rates by the accord e of
laid down are meant administrative ingly administ
to apply to all tribunal where suspen rative
enterprises. the: ded expertne
Prior notice and pendin ss; and
hearing to the 1. Question demands g 2. To attain
affected parties is not administrat referra uniformit
a requirement, except ive l of the y of
where the legislature determinat claim applicati
itself requires it. ion to the on of
requiring admini regulator
special y laws
strativ
knowledge, which
e
experience can be
agency
and secured
for its
services of only if
view.
the determin
administrat DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION and
Doctrin ive EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
e of tribunal; ation of
Primar 2. Question Rationale: the issue
y requires is left to
Jurisdic determinat 1. To the
tion or ion of ta administ
Doctrin technical ke rative
e of and ful body.
Prior intricate l
issues of a
Resort
fact; Instances administra
3. Uniformity tive bodies
Under
of ruling is where the have
the essential to concurren
principl comply doctrine t
e of with jurisdictio
primary purposes of
finds no n.
jurisdict the
ion, regulatory application
Exceptions
courts statute
cannot administer 1. By the
court's to
or will ed.
not determinati
on, the the
determi NOTE: In such
ne a instances, relief legislature
did not Doctrine
controv must first be
ersy intend that
obtained in of
involvin the issues
administrative
g be left
proceeding Primary
question solely to the
before a Jurisdiction
within initial
remedy will be
determinati
the supplied by the
on of the 1. Where
jurisdict courts even administrati there is
ion of an though the ve body; estoppel
adminis matter is 2. The issues on the
trative within the involve part of the
body proper purely party
prior to jurisdiction of a questions of invoking
the court. The law; and the
decision judicial process 3. Courts and doctrine;
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
2. Where the moot;
challenged 10. When there 1. Suspend the such issues to the
administrativ is no other judicial process administrative
e act is plain, pending body for its view.
patently speedy and referral of such (Villaflor v. Court
illegal, adequate issues to the of Appeals, G.R.
amounting to remedy; administrative No. 95694,
lack of 11. When body for its October 9, 1997)
review; or
jurisdiction; strong
2. If the parties Q: A civil case for
3. Where there public
would not be the collection of
is interest is
unfairly sum of money
unreasonable involved;
disadvantaged, was filed by X
delay or and
dismiss the Company
official 12. In quo
case without
inaction that warranto against the
prejudice.
will proceedings. province of
(Euro-Med
irretrievably (The Batangas before
Laboratories
prejudice the Province of the RTC. After
Phil. v. Province
complainant; Aklan v. Jody the petitioner’s
of Batangas,
4. Where the King presentation of
G.R No. 148106,
amount Construction evidence, the
July 17, 2006)
involved is and province of
relatively Developmen Batangas moved
Applicability of
small so as to t Corp., G.R. for the dismissal
the Doctrine of
make the rule Nos. 197592 of the case on
Primary
impractical & 202623, the ground that
Jurisdiction
and November it is the
oppressive; 27, 2013) Commission on
In recent years, it
5. Where the Audit which has
has been the
question Raising the primary
jurisprudential
involved is issue of jurisdiction over
trend to apply this
purely legal primary the matter for it
doctrine to cases
and will jurisdiction involves
ultimately involving matters
transactions
have to be that demand the
The court may with the
decided by special competence
motu proprio province which
the courts of of administrative
raise the issue of was governed by
justice; agencies even if the
primary the Local
6. Where question involved
jurisdiction and Government
judicial is also judicial in
its invocation Code provisions
intervention character. It applies
cannot be and COA rules
is urgent; where a claim is
waived by the and regulations
7. When its originally
failure of the on supply and
application cognizable in the
parties to argue property
may cause courts, and comes
it, as the management in
great and into play whenever
doctrine exists local
irreparable enforcement of the
for the proper governments. Is
damage; claim requires the
distribution of the contention of
8. Where the resolution of issues
power between the province of
controverted which, under a
judicial and Batangas
acts violate regulatory scheme,
administrative correct?
due process; have been placed
bodies and not within the special
9. When the for the A: YES. It is the
issue of non- competence of an
convenience of administrative COA and not the
exhaustion of the parties. In RTC which has
administrativ body; in such case,
such case the the judicial process primary
e remedies jurisdiction to
court may: is suspended
has been pass upon
rendered pending referral of
POLITICAL LAW
petitioner’s money training and garnishment. The
claim against knowledge of an settlement of the is settled
respondent local administrative monetary claim was jurisprudenc
government unit. body, relief must still subject to the e that upon
Such jurisdiction may first be obtained in primary jurisdiction determinatio
not be waived by the an administrative of the COA despite n of State
parties’ failure to proceeding before the final decision of liability, the
argue the issue nor resort to the courts the RTC having prosecution,
active participation is had even if the already validated the enforcement
in the proceedings. matter may well be claim. The funds of or
The doctrine of within their proper Petitioner are satisfaction
primary jurisdiction jurisdiction. It government funds thereof must
holds that if a case is applies where a that are public in still be
such that its claim is originally character, including pursued in
determination cognizable in the any interest accruing accordance
requires the courts and from the deposit of with the rules
expertise, specialized such funds in any and
banking institution, procedures
comes into play filed by Stern Builder which constitute a laid down in
whenever against petitioner, the RTC "special trust fund," P.D. No. 1445,
enforcement of the rendered a favorable the disbursement of otherwise
claim requires the judgment and granted the which should always known as the
resolution of issues motion for execution filed be subject to Government
which, under a therewith by Stern auditing by the COA. Auditing
regulatory scheme, Builders. Consequently, the As such, the private Code of the
have been placed sheriff served notices of claimants had no Philippines
within the special garnishment on the alternative except to which
competence of an petitioner’s depository first seek the pertains to
administrative agency. banks. Petitioner filed an approval of the COA COA’s
In such a case, the urgent motion to quash the of their monetary primary
court in which the notices of garnishment; and claim. Trial judges jurisdiction
claim is sought to be a motion to quash the writ should not to examine,
enforced may suspend of execution on the ground immediately issue audit and
the judicial process that government funds and writs of execution or settle all
pending referral of properties could not be garnishment against claims of any
such issues to the seized by virtue of writs of the Government or sort due from
administrative body execution or garnishment any of its the
for its view or, if the except in pursuance of an subdivisions, Government
parties would not be appropriation law or other agencies and or any of its
unfairly specific statutory authority. instrumentalities to subdivisions,
disadvantaged, However RTC, through enforce money agencies and
dismiss the case respondent Judge, judgments. It instrumentali
without prejudice. authorized the release of ties.
(Euro-Med the garnished funds of the Rejection of
Laboratories Phil. Inc. UP. CA upheld RTC’s the claim will
v. Province of judgment and the issuance authorize the
Batangas, G.R. No. of the writ of garnishment claimant to
148106, July 17, 2006) of petitioner’s funds. Was elevate the
the appellate court correct matter to the
Q: Petitioner in sustaining RTC’s Supreme
university jurisdiction to issue the Court on
contracted the writ of garnishment against certiorari and
services of Stern petitioner? in effect, sue
Builders Corporation the State
for the construction A: NO. The CA erred in ruling thereby.
and renovation of its that Petitioner’s funds could (University of
buildings in UP Los be the proper subject of a the
Banos. In an action writ of execution or Philippines v.
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
Dizon, sp remedy;
G.R. No. Premature eci and,
171182, invocation of al 5. To avail
August court civ of
23, intervention is il administ
2012) fatal to one’s ac rative
cause of action. tio remedy
Doctrin Exhaustion of ns entails
e of administrative w lesser
Exhaust remedies is a hi expenses
ion of prerequisite for ch and
Admini judicial review; ar provides
strative it is a condition e for a
Remedi precedent av speedier
es which must be ail dispositi
complied with. ab on of
It calls le controve
for Rationale: on rsies.
ly
resortin
1. To enable if Exceptions
g first to
the th to the
the
administrat er application
appropr
ive e of the
iate
superiors is doctrine
administ
to correct no (1991, 2000,
rative
the errors ot 2004 Bar)
authorit he
ies in committed
by their r 1. Violation of due
the pl
resoluti subordinat process;
es; ai 2. When
on of a n,
2. Courts there is
controv sp
should estoppel
ersy ee
refrain on the
falling dy
from part of
under , the
their disturbing
an administ
jurisdict the
d rative
ion and findings of
ad agency
must administrat
eq concerne
first be ive bodies
ua d;
in
appeale te
deference
d to the
to the
administ 3. When the excess of
doctrine of issue
rative jurisdictio
separation involved is
superior n;
of powers; a purely
s up to 6. When the
3. Courts legal
the responden
should not question;
highest t is a
be saddled 4. When there
level Departme
with the is
before review of nt
the irreparable Secretary
administrat
same ive cases; injury; whose
may be 4. Judicial 5. When the acts as an
elevated review of administrati alter ego
to the administrat ve action is of the
courts of ive cases is patently President
justice usually illegal bears the
for effected amounting implied
review. through to lack or and
POLITICAL LAW
assumed administrative District
approval of remedies (ALWAD), a resolution
the latter; GOCC that implementing
7. When the Failure to operates water the water rate
subject observe the utility services increase of P90
matter is a doctrine of conducted for the first ten
private land exhaustion of public hearing cubic meters of
case administrative for the purpose water
proceedings; remedies does of increasing consumption.
8. When it not affect the the water rate. Because of this,
would be jurisdiction of They consumers filed
unreasonable; the Court. The subsequently a Petition for
9. When no only effect of received a Injunction
administrativ non- compliance letter from the against the
e review is with this rule is Local Water petitioner
provided by before the RTC
that it will Utilities
law; alleging that
deprive the Administration
10. When the rule ALWAD violated
complainant of a (LWUA)
does not LOI 700 by
provide a cause of action, confirming the
which is a proposed implementing a
plain, speedy,
ground for a water rates. rate increase
and adequate
remedy; motion to ALWAD issued greater than
11. When the dismiss. If not a 60% of current
issue of non- invoked at the rate and failing
exhaustion of proper time, this to conduct
administrativ ground is public hearing
e remedies deemed waived for the imposed
has been and the court rate of ₱90.
rendered can take ALWAD filed a
moot; cognizance of Motion to
12. When there the case and try Dismiss for
are it. (Republic v. failure to
circumstances Sandiganbayan, exhaust
indicating the G.R. Nos. administrative
urgency of 112708-09, remedy under
judicial March 29, 1996) PD 198 as
intervention; amended. One of
13. When it Effect of non- the respondents
would compliance then questioned
amount to a the legality of
nullification the water rate
Non-compliance
of a claim; increase before
and with the
doctrine of the National
14. Where the
primary Water Resources
rule on
jurisdiction or Board (NWRB).
qualified
political doctrine of RTC denied
agency exhaustion of ALWAD’s Motion
applies. administrative to Dismiss. On
(Laguna CATV remedies is not appeal, CA
Network v. jurisdictional for affirmed the
Maraan, the defect may RTC. Does RTC
G.R. No. be waived by a have jurisdiction
139492, failure to assert over the matter?
November 19, the same at the
2002) earliest A: YES. The
opportune time. failure to exhaust
Effect of non- administrative
exhaustion of Q: Alicia Water remedy does not
ADMINISTRATIVe LAW
affect the RTC’s OP. For this constitutional agency but the
jurisdiction. Non- reason, Sanchez authority to determination of the
exhaustion of and Ramos discipline a Deputy case requires the
administrative challenged the Ombudsman and/or technical expertise of
remedies only constitutionality a Special Prosecutor the administrative
renders the action of Section 8(2) of in the first place, agency.
premature, that the R.A. 6770 or The then any ruling on Although the matter Judicial inte
cause of action is not Ombudsman Act the legal correctness is within the withheld un
ripe for judicial of 1989 regarding of the OP’s decision jurisdiction of the administrat
determination. It is the president’s on the merits will be court, it must yield to process has
incumbent upon the disciplinary an empty one. In the jurisdiction of the completed.
party who has an jurisdiction over a other words, since administrative
administrative deputy the validity of the agency.
remedy to pursue the ombudsman and a OP’s decision on the
same to its special merits of the NOTE: The general rule is
appropriate prosecutor. The dismissal is that before a party may
conclusion before Supreme Court inextricably seek the intervention of the
seeking judicial rendered its anchored on the court, he should first avail
intervention. decision final and correct of all the means afforded
Although the upholding the ruling on the him by administrative
doctrine of constitutionality constitutional issue, processes. The issues which
exhaustion does not of the said law and the whole case – administrative agencies are
preclude in all cases a ordered the including the authorized to decide should
party from seeking reinstatement of constitutional issue – not be summarily taken
judicial relief, cases Sanchez. As remains alive for the from them and
where its observance regards Ramos, Court’s
has been disregarded the Court ruled consideration on
require a strong that the motion for
showing of the disciplinary reconsideration.
inadequacy of the proceeding (Emilio A. Gonzales
prescribed procedure against her should III v. Office of the
and of impending be continued President/Wendell
harm. (Merida Water because Section Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
District v. Bacarro, 8(2) of R.A. No. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr.,
G.R. No. 165993, 6770 is not G.R. No. 196231/G.R.
September 30, 2008) unconstitutional. No. 196232, January
Only the OP, 28, 2014)
Q: Deputy through the OSG
Ombudsman moved for the Doctrine of
Katerina Sanchez reconsideration of Primary
was dismissed by the Court’s ruling. Jurisdiction vs.
the Office of the What then is the Doctrine of
President on the effect of the Exhaustion of
ground of betrayal absence of motion Administrative
of public trust and a for Remedies
disciplinary reconsideration
proceeding against on the part of
DOCTRINE OF
Special Prosecutor Sanchez and
PRIMARY
Miranda Ramos is Ramos?
JURISDICTION
pending before the
Both deal with the proper relationships
A: NONE. The case since a serious between the courts and administrative
omission of the filing constitutional question has agencies.
of a motion for been raised and is one of the Case is within the
reconsideration poses underlying bases for the concurrent
no obstacle for the validity or invalidity of the jurisdiction of the
Court’s review of its presidential action. If the court and an
ruling on the whole President does not have any administrative
POLITICAL LAW
submitt
ed to a
court
without
first
giving
such
adminis
trative
agency
the
opportu
nity to
dispose
of the
same
after
due
delibera
tion.
ElecTIOn LAW
questions submitted to the people. It includes
ELECTION LAW
SUFFRAGE
Suffrage is the right and obligation of qualified

citizens to vote in the election of certain local and
national officers and in the determination of
questions submitted to the people. It includes
within its scope election, plebiscite, initiative and
referendum. (Nachura, 2014)
Right of suffrage not absolute
The exercise of the right of suffrage is subject to

existing substantive and procedural requirements
embodied in our Constitution, statute books, and
other repositories of law. (Akbayan-Youth v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001)
Scope of Suffrage
1. Plebiscite –The electoral process by which an

initiative on the Constitution is approved or
rejected by the people.
2. Initiative - The power of the people to

propose amendments to the Constitution or
to propose and enact legislations through
election called for the purpose. [R.A. 6735,
The Initiative and Referendum Act, Sec. 3(a)]
a. Initiative on the Constitution;
b. Initiative on statutes; or
c. Initiative on local legislation.
3. Referendum –The power of the electorate to

approve or reject a piece of legislation
through an election called for the purpose.
i. Referendum on statutes; or
ii. Referendum on local laws.
4. Recall –The mode of removal of an elective

public officer by the people after 1 year of
assuming the office and not later than 1 year
befor- the end of his term of office.
Election
Election is the means by which people choose

their officials for a definite and fixed period and
to whom they entrust for the time being the
exercise of the powers of government. (Nachura,
2016)
Suffrage is the right and obligation of qualified

citizens to vote in the election of certain local and
national officers and in the determination of
POLITICAL LAW
within its scope election, plebiscite, initiative and
referendum. (Nachura, 2014)
Right of suffrage not absolute
The exercise of the right of suffrage is subject to

existing substantive and procedural requirements
embodied in our Constitution, statute books, and
other repositories of law. (Akbayan-Youth v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, March 26, 2001)
Scope of Suffrage
5. Plebiscite –The electoral process by which an

initiative on the Constitution is approved or
rejected by the people.
6. Initiative - The power of the people to propose

amendments to the Constitution or to propose
and enact legislations through election called for
the purpose. [R.A. 6735, The Initiative and
Referendum Act, Sec. 3(a)]
a. Initiative on the Constitution;
b. Initiative on statutes; or
c. Initiative on local legislation.
7. Referendum –The power of the electorate to

approve or reject a piece of legislation through
an election called for the purpose.
iii. Referendum on statutes; or
iv. Referendum on local laws.
8. Recall –The mode of removal of an elective public

officer by the people after 1 year of assuming the
office and not later than 1 year befor- the end of
his term of office.
Election
Election is the means by which people choose their

officials for a definite and fixed period and to whom
they entrust for the time being the exercise of the
powers of government. (Nachura, 2016)
Components of an election
1. Choosing or selecting candidates to public office

by popular vote;
2. Holding of electoral campaign;
3. Conducting of the polls;
4. Listing of votes;
5. Casting and receiving the ballots from the voters;
6. Counting the ballots;
7. Making the election returns; and
8. Proclaiming the winning candidates
Kinds of elections 1. These qualifications are continuing
requirements; and
1. Regular election – It is an election 2. Congress may not add qualifications but can
participated in by those who possess the provide for procedural requirements and
right of suffrage, not otherwise disqualified disqualifications. However, the disqualifications
by law, and is registered voters. must not amount to qualifications.
2. Special election –It is held when there is Residence and domicile

failure of election on the scheduled date of
regular election in a particular place or to fill In election cases, the Court treats domicile and
a vacancy in office before the expiration of residence as synonymous terms. Both import not
the term for which the incumbent was only an intention to reside in a fixed place but
elected. also personal presence in that place, coupled with
conduct indicative of such intention (Pundaodaya
Rules on construction of election laws v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 179313, September 17, 2009).
CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTION LAW Effect of transfer of residence

Laws for conduct of Before the election:
elections Mandatory Any person, who transfers residence solely by
After the election: reason of his occupation, profession or
Directory employment in private or public service,
Laws for Mandatory and strictly education, etc., shall not be deemed to have lost
Candidates construed his original residence. [OEC, Art. XII, Sec. 117(2);
Asistio v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 191124, April 27, 2010]
Procedural rules Liberally construed in
favor of ascertaining
Establishing a new domicile
the will of the
electorate
To establish a new domicile of choice, personal
presence in the place must be coupled with
Election period
conduct indicative of this intention. (Jalover v. de
la Pena, G.R. No. 209286, September 23, 2014)
GR: The period of election starts at 90 days
before and ends 30 days after the election date
Disqualifications for the exercise of suffrage
pursuant to Sec. 9, Art. IX-C of the Constitution
and Sec. 3 of
1. Sentenced by final judgment to suffer
B.P. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus
imprisonment for not less than one year,
Election Code (OEC).
unless granted a plenary pardon or granted
amnesty;
XPN: Under these same provisions, the COMELEC
is not precluded from setting a period different
2. Conviction by final judgment of any of the
from that provided thereunder. (Aquino v.
following:
COMELEC, G.R. No. 211789-90, March 17, 2015)
a. Crime involving disloyalty to the
government;
QUALIFICATION AND DISQUALIFICATION OF
b. Violation against national security; or
VOTERS
c. Firearms laws
Qualifications for the exercise of suffrage
NOTE: The right to vote is reacquired upon
1. Filipino citizenship; expiration of five years after service of
2. At least 18 years of age; sentence referred to in the two preceding
3. Resident of the Philippines for at least one items.
year;
4. Resident of the place where he proposes to 3. Insanity or incompetence as declared by
vote for at least six months immediately competent authority. (OEC, Art. XII, Sec. 118)
preceding the election; and
5. Not otherwise disqualified by law. (Art. V, NOTE: These are the same grounds for
1987 Constitution, Sec. 1) disqualification to register as a voter under Sec.
11 of R.A. 8189, Voter’s Registration Act of 1996.
NOTE:
registration thereto that Allen failed
REGISTRAT Double- is void ab initio. to sign very
ION OF registrant (Maruhom v. important parts
VOTERS COMELEC, G.R. No. of the application,
It pertains 179430, July 27, which refer to the
Registratio to any 2009) oath which
n person Xander should
who, being Q: Shanti filed a have taken to
Registration a petition for the validate and
is the act of registered cancellation of the swear to the
accomplishi voter, COC of Xander for veracity of the
ng and filing registers Mayor of South contents
a sworn anew Upi alleging that appearing in the
application without Xander was not a application for
for filing an registered voter registration.
registration applicatio in the Plainly, from the
by a n for Municipality of
qualified cancellatio South Upi since
voter before n of his Allen failed to
the election previous sign his
officer of registratio application for
the city or n. [OEC, registration, thus,
municipality Art. XXII, the unsigned
wherein he Sec. 261(y) application for
resides and (5)] registration has
including no legal effect. In
the same in Double refutation, Xander
the book of registrants asseverated that
registered are still his failure to sign
voters upon qualified his application for
approval by to vote registration did
the Election provided not affect the
registration that validity of his
Board. [RA. COMELEC registration since
8189, has to he possesses the
Voter’s make a qualifications of a
Registration determina voter set forth in
Act of tion on the Omnibus
1996,Sec. which Election Code as
3(a)] It does registratio amended by Sec. 9
not confer n is valid, of
the right to and which R.A. 8189. Should
vote; it is is void. Allen be
but a COMELEC disqualified?
condition laid down
precedent the rule in A: YES. R.A. 8189
to the Minute (The Voter’s
exercise of Resolution Registration Act of
the right. No. 00- 1996) specifically
Registration 1513 that provides that an
is a while the application for
regulation, first registration shall
not a registratio contain specimen
qualification n of any signatures of the
. (Yra v. voter applicant as well as
Abano, G.R. subsists, his/her
No. 30187, any thumbprints,
November 5, subsequen among others. The
1928) t evidence shows
229
foregoing, the member of an XPN: No registration
irregularities accredited shall be conducted
surrounding citizen’s arm during the period
Xander’s using the data starting 120 days
application for supplied by before a regular
registration the applicant. election and 90 days
eloquently The fact of before a special
proclaims that illiteracy or election. (R.A. 8189,
he did not disability shall Sec. 8)
comply with the be so
minimum indicated in Q: Kabataan Party-
requirements of the List assailed the
RA 8189. This application constitutionality of
leads to only (R.A. 8189, RA 10367, which
one conclusion: Sec. 14). directs COMELEC to
that Xander, not implement a
having NOTE: R.A. mandatory
demonstrated 9369 (The biometrics
that he duly Poll registration system
accomplished Automation for new voters and
an application Law) now those registered
for registration, defines a voters whose
is not a disabled voter biometrics have not
registered as “a person been captured shall
voter. Hence, he with impaired submit themselves
must be capacity to use for validation. In
disqualified to the Automated compliance,
run for Mayor. Election COMELEC
(Gunsi Sr. v. System” implemented rules
COMELEC, G.R. [Sec.2(1)]. and regulations
No. 168792, prescribing the
February 23, procedure for
2009) Kinds of validation,
registration deactivation, and
Illiterate and system reactivation of voters’
disabled voters
1. Continuing;
Any illiterate and
person may 2. Computerize
register with d.
the assistance
of the Election System of
Officer or any continuing
member of an registration
accredited
citizen’s arms. GR: It is a
The application system where
for registration the
of a physically application of
disabled person registration of
may be voters shall be
prepared by any conducted
relative within daily in the
the fourth civil office hours of
degree of the election
consanguinity officer during
or affinity or by regular office
the Election hours.
Officer or any
registration records (VRRs). Kabataan Party-
List claimed that RA 10367 is unconstitutional 1. Any person who has been sentenced by final
because biometric validation is not different judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less
from the unconstitutional requirement of than one year, such disability not having been
literacy and property because mere non- removed by plenary pardon or amnesty;
validation already absolutely curtails the
exercise of the right of suffrage through NOTE: The right to vote may be
deactivation. Is RA 10367 unconstitutional? automatically reacquired upon expiration of
fiveyears after service of sentence as certified
A: NO. The Court ruled that the right to vote is not by the clerk of court.
a natural right but is a right created by law.
Suffrage is a privilege granted by the State to such 2. Any person who has been adjudged by a final
persons or classes as are most likely to exercise it judgment by a competent court or tribunal pf
for the public good. A registration requirement having caused/committed any crime
rises to the level of a literacy, property or other involving disloyalty to the duly constituted
substantive requirement as contemplated by the government such as rebellion, sedition,
Framers of the Constitution - that is, one which violation of the anti-subversion and firearm
propagates a socio-economic standard which is laws, or any crime against national security,
bereft of any rational basis to a person's ability to unless restored to his full civil and political
intelligently cast his vote and to further the public rights in accordance with law;
good - the same cannot be struck down as
unconstitutional. Court definitively characterized NOTE: The right to vote may be regained
registration as a form of regulation and not as a automatically upon expiration of five years
qualification for the right of suffrage – “biometrics after service of sentence.
refers to a quantitative analysis that provides a
positive identification of an individual such as 3. Any person declared by competent authority
voice, photograph, fingerprint, signature, iris, to be insane or incompetent unless such
and/or such other identifiable features." disqualification has been subsequently
(Kabataan Partylist v. COMELEC, G.R. No. removed by a declaration of a proper
189868, December 15, 2009, PER J. PERLAS- authority that such person is no longer
BERNABE) insane or incompetent;
Book of voters 4. Any person who did not vote in the two
successive preceding regular elections as
Classified as permanent whereby each precinct shown by their voting records. For this
shall have a permanent list of all registered voters purpose, regular elections do not include SK
residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the elections;
precinct.
5. Any person whose registration has been
Grounds for alteration ordered excluded by the Court;
1. Deactivation/reactivation; 6. Any person who has lost his Filipino

2. Exclusion/ inclusion; citizenship. (R.A. 8189, Sec. 27)
3. Cancellation of registration in case of death;
4. Annulment of book of voters; INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION PROCEEDINGS
5. New voters; and
6. Transfer of residence. Inclusion proceedings
Deactivation Any person whose application for registration has

been disapproved by the Board or whose name
It is the removal from the registration records has been stricken out from the list may file with
from the precinct books of voters and places the the court a petition to include his name in the
same, properly marked and dated in indelible ink, permanent list of voters in his precinct at any
in the inactive file after entering the cause of time but not within 105 days prior to a regular
deactivation. election or 75 days prior to a special election.
Grounds for deactivation Exclusion proceedings

n of
law. The proceedings for
Any the exclusion or Local absentee voting
registered Who may inclusion of voters in
voter, file, the list of voters are It refers to a system
representati period of summary in character. of voting whereby
ve of a filing; and Except for the right to government officials
political grounds remain in the list of and employees,
party or the voters or for being including members
Election excluded therefrom for of the Armed Forces
Officer, may Who the particular election
1. Any private of the Philippines
file with the may file person in relation to which the (AFP), and the
court a application proceedings had been Philippine National
sworn disapproved held,
by a decision in an Police (PNP), media
petition for the exclusion or inclusion practitioners
the Registrationproceeding, even if including their
exclusion of Board. final and unappealable, technical and
a voter from does not acquire the support staff who are
the nature of res judicata.
2. Those whose duly registered
permanent names wereIt does not operate as a voters, are allowed to
list of voters stricken bar out to any further vote for the national
giving the from the list of that a party may
action positions in places
name, voters. (take concerning the where they are not
address and Sec. 139) subject passed upon in registered voters but
the precint the proceeding. Thus, a where they are
of the 3. COMELECdecision in an temporarily assigned
challenged Period exclusion proceeding
Any timeexcept to perform election
voter at any would
for filing 105 days before neither be duties on election
time conclusive
regular election on the day. [COMELEC
but not or voter’s political status, Resolution 9637, Sec.
within 100 nor bar subsequent
before a special 1(a), 13 February
days prior election proceedings on his 2013.]
to a regular (COMELEC right to be registered
election or Resolution as a voter in any other Overseas Voting
65 days 8820). election. (Domino v.
before Grounds 1. COMELEC, G.R. No. The process by which
special 134015, July 19, 1999)
for registration qualified citizens of
election. has the Philippines
disapproved Voter
by using fake abroad exercise their
Jurisdiction the board; address not excluded right to vote. [R.A.
2. 10590, Sec. 3(k),
1. MTC – A citizen cannot be
been stricken amending R.A. 9189,
original outfrom, disenfranchised for the Sec. 3]
and list. flimsiest of reasons.
exclusiv Only on the most 1. Coverage
e; Res serious grounds, and
2. RTC – upon clear and Qualified citizens
judicata
appellat convincing proof, may of the Philippines
not
e a citizen be deemed to may vote for
applicable
jurisdict have forfeited this President, Vice-
ion; and precious heritage of President,
3. SC – freedom. (Asistio v. Senators and
appellat Aguirre, G.R. No. Party-List
e 191124, April 27, 2010) Representatives,
jurisdict as well as in all
ion over LOCAL AND national
RTC on OVERSEAS ABSENTEE referenda and
questio VOTING plebiscites. (R.A.
231
10590, Sec. R.A. 9189) abroad, as
4, amending verified by the It refers to any
Philippine person aspiring
2. Qualifications retained their embassies, for or seeking an
Philippine consulates or elective public
a. Filipino citizenship Foreign office, who has
citizens under R.A. Service filed a Certificate
abroad; 9225; establishments of Candidacy
b. At least 18 c. Those who concerned, (CoC) by himself
years of have unless such or through an
age on the committed competent accredited
day of and are authority political party,
elections; convicted in a subsequently aggroupment or
and final judgment certifies that coalition of
c. Not by a such person is parties[OEC,Sec.
otherwise Philippine no longer 79(a)].
disqualifie court or insane or
d by law. tribunal of an incompetent Any person may
offense (R.A. 10590, thus file a CoC on
punishable by Sec. 5, any day within
3. Disqualificatio imprisonment amending R.A. the prescribed
ns of not less 9189). period for filing a
than one year, CoC, yet that
a. Those such disability person shall be
who not having considered a
have lost been removed DETAINEE VOTING candidate, for
their by plenary purposes of
Filipino pardon or Detainee voting (either determining
citizensh amnesty: through the special one’s possible
ip in Provided, polling place inside jails violations of
accordan however, that or escorted voting) may election laws,
ce with any person be availed of by any only during the
Philippin disqualified to registered detainee campaign period.
e laws; vote under whose registration is (Penera v.
b. Those this not COMELEC, G.R.
who subsection transferred/deactivate No. 181613,
have shall d/ cancelled/ deleted. November 25,
expressl automatically (Sec. 1 of Resolution No. 2009; R.A. 9369,
y acquire the 9371, March 6,2012, Poll Automation
renounc right to vote COMELEC.) Law, Sec. 15)
ed their upon the
Philippin expiration of QUALIFICATIONS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS
e five years OF CANDIDATES
citizensh after service
ip and of sentence; *See Resolution No. 9371 Qualifications of Candidates
who and dated March 6,2012
have d. Any citizen of I. National level
pledged the
allegianc Philippines A. For President and Vice-
e to a abroad CANDIDACY President
foreign previously 1. Natural-born citizen;
country, declared Candidate 2. At least
except insane or 40 years
those incompetent old on
who by competent the day
have authority in of the
reacquir the election;
ed or Philippines or 3. Able to read and write;
4. Registered voter; and

5. R e ti he
e l o Philippi
s y ns nes for
i p 2 not less
d r a than
e e n two
n c d years
t e 3) immedia
d tely
o i B. For Senator precedi
f n 1. Natural-born ng the
g citizen; day of
t t 2. A the
h h t election.
e e le (1987
d a Constitu
P a st tion, Art.
h y 3 VI,Sec.
i o 5 3)
l f y
i t e II. Local level
p h a
p e r A. F
i e s o
n l ol r
e e d
s c o D
ti n i
f o t s
o n h t
r . e r
( d i
1 a c
a
9 y t
t
8 o
7 f R
l C t
e e
o h p
a n e
s r
s el e
t t e
1 s
i ct e
0 t io n
u n; t
y t 3. Able to read and a
e i write; t
a o 4. Registered i
r n voter; and v
s , 5. R e
A e s
i r si N
m t. d a
m V e t
e I n u
d I, t r
i S o a
a e f l
t c t -
233
b s an g the day
o h on of the
r a e election;
n ll ye 4. Able to read and write;
b ar and
c e im 5. At least
i e m 25 years
t l ed old on
i e iat the day
z c el of the
e t y election.
n e pr (1987
; d ec Constitut
2. R ; ed ion, Art.
e 3. R in VI, Sec.
g e 6)
i s
s i B. For Governor, y
t d Vice Governor, preceding
e e Mayor, Vice- Mayor, the day of
r n Punong Barangay the
e t and Sangguniang election;
d o Members (1994, 4. Able to
f 2005 Bar) read and
v t write
o h 1. Citizen of Filipino
t e the or any
e s Philippines other
r a ; local
m 2. Registered language
i e voter in the or dialect.
n d barangay, (R.A.
i municipalit 7160
t s y, city, or Local
h t province Governm
e r or, in the ent Code
i case of a of the
d c member of Philippin
i t the es, Sec.
s f Sanggunia 39)
t o ng
r Panlalawig NOTE:
r
i a an, 1.Congress may
c p Sanggunia not add to
t e ng qualifications for
r Panlungsod elective officials
i , or provided in the
i
o Sanggunia Constitution; and
n
d ng Bayan, 2. Qualifications
n the district prescribed by law
w where he are continuing
h o
t intends to requirements and
i be elected; must be
c l
e 3. Resident possessed for the
h therein for duration of the
s
s at least one officer’s active
h year tenure. (Frivaldo
t
e immediatel v. COMELEC, G.R.
h

No. 87193, property in Uyugan,
June 23, as Batanes. However, his vacation from
1989) residency he later worked in work in Canada.
proof Canada and Where is his residence
Purpose of became a for the purpose of
the The fact Canadian citizen. elections?
residency that a Notwithstanding,
requireme candidate he frequently A: CANADA. In
nt has no visited Uyugan, Coquilla v. COMELEC,
registered Batanes during SC ruled that
The property naturalization in a
minimum under his foreign country may
requirement name in result in an
under our the locality abandonment of
Constitution wherein he domicile in the
and election seeks to be Philippines. This
laws for the elected holds true in
candidates' does not Caballero's case as
residency in belie his permanent resident
the political actual status in Canada is
unit they residence required for the
seek to therein acquisition of
represent because Canadian citizenship.
has never property Hence, Caballero had
been ownership effectively
intended to is not abandoned his
be an empty among the domicile in the
formalistic qualificatio Philippines and
condition. It ns transferred his
carries with required of domicile of choice in
it a very candidates Canada. His frequent
specific for local visits to Uyugan,
purpose: to election. It Batanes during his
prevent is enough vacation from work
“stranger[s] that he in Canada cannot be
or should live considered as waiver
newcomer[s in the of such
] locality, abandonment.
unacquainte even in a (Caballero v.
d with the rented COMELEC, G.R. No.
conditions house or 209835, September
and needs of that of a 22, 2015)
a friend or
community” relative. Grounds for
from (Jalover v. disqualification (1994,
seeking dela Pena, 1999,
elective ibid.) 2010 Bar)
offices in
that Q: 1. Declared as
community. Caballero incompetent or
(Jalover v. de was a insane by
la Pena, natural- competent
G.R. No. born authority;
209286, Filipino 2. Convicted by
September who had final judgment
23, 2014) his for subversion,
insurrection,
domicile
rebellion, or any
Registered of origin
offense for which
235
he has been imprison candidate; OEC with regard to
sentenced ment 17. Violation of Sec. 73 CoC; or
to a penalty within
of 18 two years 18. Violation of the Ombudsman. Is
months after Sec. 78 Dimapilis barred to run due
imprisonm serving on to his misrepresentation he
ent; sentence; material committed in his COC?
3. Convicted 10. Removed misrepresentation
by final from in the COC. A: YES, because of the material
judgment office as a misrepresentation and a COC
for a crime result of Effect of an unsworn is a formal requirement for
involving an renunciation of eligibility to public office. A
moral administr foreign citizenship person intending to run for
turpitude; ative case; office must not only possess
4. Election 11. Convicted Failure to renounce the required qualifications for
offenses under by final foreign citizenship in the position for which he
Sec. 261 of the judgment accordance with the intends to run but must also
OEC; for exact tenor of Sec. 5(2)
violating possess none of the grounds
5. Committin of R.A. 9225 renders a for disqualification under the
g acts of the oath dual citizen ineligible to
of law. In this case Dimapilis was
terrorism run for and thus hold
allegiance found guilty of Grave
to enhance any elective public
to the Misconduct and its penalty is
candidacy office. (Sobejana-
Republic; perpetual disqualification from
6. Spending Condon v. COMELEC,
in his 12. Dual holding public office and the
citizenshi G.R. No. 198742, August COMELEC has the legal duty to
election 10, 2012)
campaign p (more enforce and administer laws
an amount specificall relative to the conduct of an
y, dual Q: Joseph Dimapilis election and under Sec. 78 of
in excess of
that allegiance was elected as Punong the OEC the COMELEc has the
allowed; ) Barangay of Brgy. legal duty to cancel the COC of
7. Soliciting, 13. Fugitives Pulung Maragul in anyone who is suffering from
receiving, from October 2010 and in the penalty of special
or making justice in 2013 he ran for re- disqualification to run for
prohibited criminal election for the same public office by virtue of final
contributio or non- position and won. judgment. (Joseph C.
ns; political When he filed his COC, Dimapilis vs. COMELEC, GR
8. Not cases here he declared under NO. 227158, April 18, 2017,
possessing or abroad; oath that he is eligible PER, J. PERLAS-BERNABE)
qualificatio 14. Permanen for the office that he
ns and t seeks to be elected. A FILING OF CERTIFICATES
possessing residents petition for OF CANDIDACY
disqualifica in a Disqualification was
tions under foreign filed against Mr.
country EFFECT OF
the Local Dimapilis on the FILING
Governmen or those ground that he was
t Code; who have barred from running
acquired No person shall be eligible for
9. Sentenced in an election since he any elective public office
by final the right was suffering from
to reside unless he files a sworn
judgment the accessory penalty certificate of
for an abroad
of perpetual
offense and
disqualification to
involving continue
hold public office as a
moral to avail of
consequence of his
turpitude the same
dismissal from
or for an right;
service as then
offense 15. Insane or
Kagawad of Brgy.
punishable feeble-
Pulung Maragul in an
by one year minded;
order dated
or more of 16. Nuisance
November 10,2009 by

can ment of v. HRET least 60 days
dida the and Lucy before the
cy election Torres- regular
wit period Gomez, election, the
hin but not G.R. No. candidates
the later than 202202, among
peri the day March 19. whom they
od before 2013) have to
fixe the choose; and
d beginnin NOTE: A 2. Avoid
here g of the CoC may confusion
in. campaign be and
(OE period. In amended inconvenienc
C, cases of before the e in the
Sec. postpone elections, tabulation of
73) ment or even after the votes
failure of the date cast.
The election, of its (Miranda v.
cert no filing. Abaya, G.R.
ifica additiona No. 136351,
te l Provisions July 28,
of certificat of the 1999)
can e of election
did candidac law on Filing CoC on the tenure of
acy y shall be certificate incumbency
shal accepted s of
l be except in candidacy 1. As to
file cases of are appointive
d substituti mandator official –
by on of y in terms. He/she is
the candidate However, considered
can s. after the ipso facto
did (OEC,Sec. elections, RESIGNED
ate 75) they are from his
per regarded office upon
son A CoC as the filing of
ally evidences directory his CoC and
or candidate so as to such
by ’s give effect resignation is
his statutory to the will irrevocable.
dul eligibility of the (OEC, Sec.
y to be electorate. 66) (2002
aut elected (Saya- Bar);
hori for an Ang Sr. v. 2. As to elective
zed elective COMELEC, official – It
rep post. It is G.R. No. has no effect.
res the 155087, The
ent documen November candidate
ativ t which 28, 2003) shall
e at formally continue to
any accords Purpose hold office,
day upon a whether he is
fro person 1. Enabl running for
m the status e the the same or a
the of a voters different
com candidate to position.
me . know, (Fair
nce (Tagolino at Elections Act,
237
S ec. hold their office in a Substitution
e 67) permanent capacity
c and are entitled to An official
. Q: Do the security of tenure candidate of a
deemed- while others serve duly registered
1 resigned at the pleasure of political party or
4 provisio the appointing coalition who
, ns which authority. (Quinto v. dies, withdraws,
are COMELEC, G.R. or is disqualified
e applicab 189698, December for any cause after
x le to 1, 2009) the last day for
p appointi the filing of CoCs
r ve Effect of filing two may be
e officials certificates of substituted by a
s and not candidacy candidate
s to belonging to, and
l elective It disqualifies the nominated by, the
y officials person to run for same political
violate both elective party or coalition.
r the positions (OEC, Sec.
e equal 73). No substitute
p protecti shall be allowed
e on However, before for any
a clause of the expiration of independent
l the the period for the candidate.
e constitut filing of CoC, the
d ion? person who has The substitute for
filed more than one a candidate, who
B A: NO. certificate of died or is
. Substanti candidacy may disqualified by
P al declare under oath final judgment,
. distinctio the office for which may file a CoC up
ns clearly he desires to be to mid-day of
exist eligible and cancel Election Day;
8
between the CoC for the Provided that, the
8
elective other office or substitute and the
1
officials office/s. A person substituted have
,
and who has filed a the same
appointiv certificate of surnames.
S e officials. candidacy may,
prior to election, If the death or
The former conditions. withdraw the same. disqualification
occupy their On the The filing of a should occur
office by other hand, withdrawal between the day
virtue of the appointive certificate of before the
mandate of officials candidacy shall not election and mid-
the hold their affect whatever day of Election
electorate. office by civil, criminal, or Day, the
They are virtue of administrative substitute
elected to an their liabilities as candidate may file
office for a designatio candidate may have a CoC with any
definite n thereto incurred (COMELEC Board of Election
term and by an Resolution 8678, Inspectors,
may be appointing Sec. 1). Election Officers,
removed authority. Provincial
therefrom Some Election OF
SUBSTITUTION AND WITHDRAWAL
only upon appointive CANDIDATES Supervisor, or
stringent officials Regional Election

Director, as 202202, March 19. for Marian to
the case may candidate, or 2013) substitute due to
be, in the in the case of a Raphael’s
political candidate for Q: Raphael and ineligibility. The
subdivision President, Angelo filed their existence of a valid
where such Vice-President CoCs for the position CoC is therefore a
person is a or Senator, of Mayor of Lucena condition sine qua
with the Law City. Angelo filed a non for a disqualified
Department; petition to disqualify candidate to be
Provided that, Raphael, alleging that validly substituted
the substitute Raphael still filed his (Tagolino v. HRET
and the CoC despite knowing and Lucy Torres-
substituted that he had exceeded Gomez, G.R. No.
candidate the 3-term limit as 202202, March 19.
have the same Mayor of Lucena City. 2013).
surnames. COMELEC First
(COMELEC Division disqualified Q: James was a
Resolution Raphael. Marian, the candidate for Vice
9984, August wife of Raphael, filed Mayor in the First
18, 2015) her own CoC in Order City. His
substitution of her Certificate of
Requisites for husband, Raphael. Nomination and
valid Can Marian validly Acceptance (CONA)
substitution substitute her was signed by his
husband? party’s chapter
1. The president Lorena. It
substitute A: NO. A disqualified appears, however,
must candidate may only be that his chapter
belong to substituted if he had a president was not
the same valid CoC in the first authorized by their
party or place because, if the national party
coalition; disqualified candidate leader to sign
and did not have a valid James’ CONA. So,
2. The and seasonably filed COMELEC
deceased, CoC, he is and was not considered him an
disqualifie a candidate at all. If a independent
d or person was not a candidate instead
withdraw candidate, he cannot of being a candidate
n be substituted under by his party.
candidate Sec. 77 of the OEC. If Subsequently,
must have we were to allow the James’ party
duly filed so-called "substitute" submitted proof
a valid to file a "new" and that Romualdez
CoC. "original" CoC beyond was authorized to
the period for the filing sign James’ CONA.
NOTE: thereof, it would be a Few days after
The crystalline case of filing his CoC, James
second unequal protection of died due to a heart
requisite the law. Thus, there attack.
is a was no valid candidate
condition
sine qua Marcelina, James’ Winston, James’ rival for the
non. wife, filed her CoC to position. Winston then
(Tagolino substitute her questioned the substitution
v. HRET deceased husband. of Marcelina saying that an
and Lucy James, despite his independent candidate
Torres- demise, received cannot be substituted.
Gomez, twice as much votes as COMELEC agreed with
G.R. No.
239
Winston. the CONA to the the name of the
Marcelina COMELEC was a mere substitute candidates if provision shall
sought to technicality that cannot they are voting for the not apply. [R.A.
reverse be used to defeat the latter: Provided, 9006(Fair
COMELEC’s will of the electorate in however, that if the Elections Act),
decision before a fair and honest substitute candidate of Sec. 12]
the SC. Who election. Non- the same family name,
should the SC compliance with formal this No Candidate, No Substitution
favor? requirements laid
down in election laws Sec. 77, OEC
A: Marcelina. when not used as a requires that
Petitioner’s means for fraudulent there be a
deceased practice will be candidate in
husband’s name considered a harmless order for
remained on the irregularity. Allowing substitution to
ballot the belated submission take place. Thus,
notwithstanding of the authority to sign if a person’s CoC
his death even CONAs will not result in had been denied
before the the situation proscribed due course to
campaign period by Section 77 of the and/or cancelled
for the local Omnibus Election Code under Sec. 78,
elections began – that an independent OEC, he or she
on March 29, candidate will be cannot be validly
2013. Yet, he invalidly substituted. In substituted in the
received almost the case at bar, neither electoral process.
twice the number the COMELEC nor Stated
of votes as the private respondent differently, since
second placer, contended the deceased there would be
private was not in fact a bona no candidate to
respondent, in a fide member of his speak of under a
decisive victory. party. The record is denial of due
Since the people bereft of any allegation course to and/or
could not have that the authority was cancellation of a
possibly meant to inexistent, forged or in CoC case, then
waste their votes any way defective. The there would be
on a deceased only issue was that it no candidate to
candidate, we was not submitted be substituted.
conclude that within the prescribed (PERLAS-
petitioner was deadline (Engle v. BERNABE CASE;
the undisputed COMELEC, G.R. No. Tagolino vs.
choice of the 215995, January 19, HRET and Lucy
electorate as Vice 2016). Torres-Gomez,
Mayor on the G.R. No. 202202,
apparent belief Stray votes March 19. 2013)
that she may
validly substitute In case of valid NUISANCE
her husband. substitutions after the CANDIDATES
That belief was official ballots have
not contradicted been printed, the votes Any registered
by any official or cast for the substituted candidate for the
formal ruling by candidates shall be same office may
the COMELEC considered as stray file a petition to
prior to the votes but shall not declare a duly
elections. invalidate the whole registered
ballot. For this purpose, candidate as a
The late the official ballots shall nuisance
submission of the provide spaces where candidate,
authority to sign the voters may write personally or

thr . 5] candi faithful
ou dates determinatio
gh Grounds ; or n of the true
dul 3. Clear will of the
y The ly electorate.
aut COMELE demo (OEC, Sec.
hor C may nstra 69)
ize motu te
d proprio that Power of COMELEC
rep or upon the
res verified candi GN: The
ent petition date COMELEC may,
ati refuse to has motu proprio or
ve give due no upon verified
wit course to bona petition of an
h or cancel fide interested party,
CO a inten refuse to give
ME certificat tion due course to or
LE e of to cancel a CoC
C, candidac run upon showing of
wit y if for the above-stated
hin shown the circumstances.
fiv that it office (OEC,Sec. 69)
e was filed for
da to: whic XPN: The
ys h the COMELEC cannot
fro 1. Put CoC motu proprio
m the has deny due course
the elect been to or cancel an
las ion filed alleged nuisance
t proc and candidate’s
da ess thus certificate of
y in prev candidacy
of moc ent a without
fili kery providing the
ng or
of disre candidate his certain situations,
Co pute; opportunity to be final judgments
C. 2. Caus heard. (Timbol v. declaring a
[R. e COMELEC, G.R. No. nuisance
A. conf 206004, February candidate should
66 usio 24, 2015) effectively cancel
46 n the COC filed by
(T amo Reason for the such candidates
he ng prohibition of as of election day.
Ele the Nuisance Otherwise,
cto voter Candidates potential nuisance
ral s by candidates will
Ref the The prohibition continue to put
or simil against nuisance the electoral
ms arity candidates is aimed process into
La of precisely at mockery by filing
w the preventing certificates of
of nam uncertainty and candidacy at the
19 es of confusion in last minute and
87 the ascertaining the delaying
), regis true will of the resolution of any
Sec tered electorate. Thus, in petition to declare
241
them as oath and OEC.
nuisance contain all exclusively on the
candidates, the ground IN
REMEDIES AND JURISDICTION that material
ELECTION
until required representation
elections are data and in contained therein as
held and the the form PETITION NOT TO GIVErequired
DUE COURSEis false.
TOThe
OR
votes prescribed petition
CANCEL A CERTIFICATE may be filed
OF CANDIDACY
counted and by the not later than 25
canvasses. Commissio A verified petition days from the time of
(Celestino n. (OEC, seeking to deny due filing of the
Martinez v. Sec. 7; course to a certificate of
HRET, G.R. Cerafica v. certificate of candidacy, and shall
No. 189034, COMELEC, candidacy may be be decided, after due
January G.R. No. filed by any person notice and hearing,
11,2010) 205136, not later than 15
December days before the
Effect of 2, 2014) election.
voting a
nuisance XPNs: In addition, the
candidate COMELEC COMELEC may motu
may go proprio or upon
The votes beyond the verified petition
cast for a face of the refuse to give due
nuisance CoC in the course to or cancel a
candidate following: certificate of
are not candidacy if show
stray but 1. Nuisan that it was filed:
counted in ce
favor of the candid 1. Put the election
bona fide ates(O process in
candidate. EC, mockery or
(Dela Cruz v. Sec. disrepute;
COMELEC, 69); 2. Cause confusion
G.R. No. 2. Petitio among the voters
192221, n to by the similarity
November deny of the names of
13, 2012) due the registered
course candidates; or
MINISTERIAL DUTY OF COMELEC
or to TO RECEIVE 3. Clearly
cancel demonstrate that
a the candidate has
GR: The CoC(O no bona fide
COMELEC EC, intention to run
shall have Sec. for the office for
the 78); or which the CoC
ministerial 3. Filing has been filed
duty to of a and thus prevent
receive and disqua a faithful
acknowledg lificati determination of
e receipt of on the true will of
the case the electorate.
certificates on any (OEC, Sec. 69)
of of the
candidacy. groun PETITION FOR
Provided, ds DISQUALIFICATION
that said enume
certificates rated It is the remedy
are under in Sec. against any candidate
68,

who does not 25, Sec. 4). any offense for foreign country. (OEC, Sec.
possess all the However, the which he has been 68)
qualifications COMELEC sentenced to a
required by the cannot penalty of more NOTE: R.A. 9225expressly
Constitution or disqualify a than 18 months or provides for the conditions
law, or who candidate for a crime before those who re-acquired
commits any without involving moral Filipino citizenship may run for
act declared by hearing and turpitude (OEC, Sec. a public office in the
law to be affording him 12); Philippines.
grounds for opportunity to 2. Any candidate who,
disqualification. adduce in action or protest (See earlier discussion on the
(COMELEC evidence to in which he is a grounds for disqualification
Rules of support his party, is declared under Candidacy for a longer
Procedure, Rule side and by final decision list.)
25, Sec.1) taking into guilty of or found
account such by COMELEC of Rules on disqualification
Time of filing the evidence. having: cases
petition for a. Given money or
disqualification Final and other material 1. Complaint filed before
executory consideration election – The Commission
The petition for judgment to influence, shall determine whether
disqualification induce or the acts complained of
may be filed A decision or corrupt the have in fact been
any day after resolution is voters of public committed. If so, the
the last day for deemed final officials COMELEC shall order the
filing of and executory performing disqualification of the
certificates of if, in case of a electoral respondent candidate.
candidacy, but division functions;
not later than ruling, no b. Committed acts 2. Complaint not resolved
the date of motion for of terrorism to before election – COMELEC
proclamation. reconsideratio enhance his may motu propio or on
(COMELEC n is filed candidacy; motion of any of the
Rules of within the c. Spent in his parties refer the complaint
Procedure, Rule reglementary election to the Law Department of
25,Sec. 3) period, or in campaign an the Commission.
cases of amount in
Nature of the rulings of the excess of the
proceedings Commission allowed; and
en banc, no d. Solicited,
The petition is restraining received or
heard order is issued made any
summarily by the contribution
(COMELEC Supreme prohibited
Rules of Court within under the
Procedure, Rule five days from Omnibus
Election Code.
receipt of the disqualification (OEC, Sec. 68)
decision or
resolution. (2013 1. Any person who 3. Any person who is
COMELEC Rules has been declared a permanent
of Procedure, by competent resident of or an
Rule 23, Sec. 8, as authority insane or immigrant to a
amended by incompetent, or foreign country,
COMELEC has been sentenced unless said person
Resolution No. by final judgment has waived his
9523) for subversion, status as
insurrection, permanent resident
Grounds for rebellion, or for or immigrant of a
243
3. Co hall tigati mmendation
mp be on to to
lai refer the Commission
nt red Law en banc –
file for Depa The Law
d preli rtme Department
aft mina nt. If shall
er ry the terminate
ele inves Law the
cti tigati Depa preliminary
on on to rtme investigation
an the nt within 30
d Law make days from
pro Depa s a receipt of the
cla rtme prim referral and
ma nt. a shall submit
tio facie its study,
n 4. Com findin report and
of plain g of recommenda
wi t guilt tion to the
nn filed and Commission
er after the en banc
– electi corre within five
Th on spon days from
e but ding the
co befor infor conclusion of
mp e matio the
lai procl n has preliminary
nt amat been investigation
sha ion filed . If it makes a
ll of with prima facie
be winn the finding of
dis er – trial guilt, it shall
mis The court, submit with
sed com the such study
. plain comp the
t laina Information
N shall nt for filing
O be may with the
T dism file a appropriate
E issed petiti court.
: . on
for Remedy if
T NOT suspe petition for
h E: nsion disqualification
e The of the is unresolved on
com procl election day
c plain amati
o t on of The petitioner
m shall the may file a motion
p be respo with the division
l refer ndent or Commission
a red . en banc where
i for the case is
n preli 5. Subm pending, to
t mina ission suspend the
ry of proclamation of
s inves reco the candidate

con prepare a Based on a fraud, or
cer list of statement of a other
ned pending material analogous
, cases and representation in causes; and
pro furnish the said certificate 3. After the
vid all that is false. voting and
ed Commiss The person whose during the
tha ioners certificate is preparation
t copies of cancelled or denied and
the said the due course under transmission
evi list. Sec. 78 is not of the election
den treated as a returns or
ce In the candidate at all, as if canvass
for event he never filed a CoC. thereof such
the that a A person whose CoC election
gro candidat has been denied due results in
un e with an course or cancelled failure to
ds existing under Sec. 78 elect on
to and cannot be account of
dis pending substituted because force majeure,
qua petition he is never violence,
lify to considered as fraud or
is disqualif candidate. analogous
str y is causes.
ong proclaim FAILURE OF ELECTION, CALL OF(Banaga
SPECIALJr. v.
. ed COMELEC,
For winner, G.R. No.
this the Grounds for 134696, July
pur Commiss failure of elections 31, 2000)
pos ion shall
e, continue Failure of elections NOTE: There is
at to may be declared in failure of
lea resolve the following cases: elections only
st the said when the will of
thr petition. 1. The election in the electorate has
ee (COMELE any polling been muted and
day C Rules of place has not cannot be
s Procedur been held on ascertained
pri e, Rule the date fixed (Benito v.
or 25, Sec. 5, on account of COMELEC, G.R. No.
to as force majeure, 134913, Jan. 19,
any amended violence, 2001).
ele by terrorism,
ctio COMELE fraud, or other Requisites for
n, C analogous declaration of
the Resolutio causes; failure of
Cle n 9523, 2. The election in elections
rk Septembe any polling
of r 25, place had been The following
the 2012). suspended requisites must
Co before the hour concur:
m Petition to deny due fixed by law for
mis course to or cancel the closing of
sio CoC vs. the voting on
n petition for account of force
sha disqualification majeure,
ll violence,
PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE TO OR CANCEL CoC
PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
terrorism,
245
1. No voting FAILURE OF elections would undermine
POSTPONEMENT OF its
has taken The COMELEC ELECTIONS constitutional
ELECTIONSfiat to decide
place in the en banc has Q: Ted AnyandseriousBarney
cause of: election contests. The phrase
precincts the original both a.ranForce forMajeure
the “election, returns and
concerned and exclusive position
b. Violence of qualifications” should be
on the date jurisdiction to representative
c. Terrorism of the interpreted in its totality as
fixed by hear and first d. district of
Loss or destruction of referring
election to all matters
law, or decide Northern paraphernalia
Samar. Ted affecting the validity of the
even if petitions for won e.while OtherBarney
analogous casescontestee's title. Consequently,
there was declaration of placed second. Barney Definition the annulment of election
voting, the failure of filed an election resultsimpossibility
is but a power
Failure to elect and Serious
election election or for protest before the
affect results of to have free andto the HRET's
concomitant
nonetheles annulment of HRET against Ted, constitutional
elections. orderly elections. mandate to
s resulted election alleging terrorism determine the validity of the
As to when the grounds must exist
in a failure results (R.A. committed by the contestee's title.
to elect; 7166, Sec. 4). Groundsof
supporters mayTedoccur Grounds must exist
and before,anyduring,
time beforeand before
The voting.
power granted to the
2. The votes Failure of after proclamation.
the elections. HRET by the Constitution is
cast would Elections vs. Barney prayed for the intended to be as complete and
As to procedure
affect the Postponeme annulment of Ted’s unimpaired as if it had
results of nt of 1. Verified
election. Ted arguedpetition 1.remained
Verified petition by in the
originally
the Elections that HRET by any hasinterested
no any interested
legislature. Thus, the HRET, as
election. person
jurisdiction over the person
the sole or motuof all contests
judge
protest2. Due Notice;
on and
the proprio by
relating to the election, returns
Power to declare premise3. Hearing. that COMELEC
and en bancof members
qualifications
a failure of annulment of election 2.ofDue notice;
the andHouse of
election returns on the ground 3. Hearing.
Representatives, may annul
of terrorism is akin toAs to effects election results if in its
a declaration of
1.determination, fraud,
failure1. of
Declaration
elections of Election is
terrorism or other electoral
Failure of postponed; and
which is under the irregularities existed to
elections; and 2. Conduct elections
exclusive jurisdiction warrant the annulment.
2. Holding of reasonably close to
of COMELEC. Is Ted Because
correct?
continuation of electionsinnotdoing
held, so, it is
elections merely exercising its
but not later than
reasonably close constitutional duty to ascertain
30 days from
A: NO. The power of the who among the candidates
to election not cessation of cause.
HRET to annul elections received the majority of the
held, but not later
differs from the power valid votes cast. (Abayon v.
than 30 days from
granted to the HRET, G.R. No. 223032, May 3,
cessation of cause.
COMELEC to declare 2016)
failure of elections. The
Constitution no less, PRE-PROCLAMATION
grants the HRET with CONTROVERSY
exclusive jurisdiction to
decide all election Pre-proclamation controversy
contests involving the refers to any question
members of the House pertaining to or affecting the
of Representatives, proceedings of the BoC, which
which necessarily may be raised by any
includes those which candidate or by any registered
raise the issue of political party or coalition of
fraud, terrorism or political parties, or by any
other irregularities accredited and
committed before,
during or after the
elections. To deprive
the HRET the
prerogative to annul

par y of ion controversy.
tici authentic massive Pre-proclamation
pati ated by fraud, controversy is
ng BEI and illegal summary in
par admitted proceedi character which
ty by the ngs, tampered/falsified
must be promptly
list BOC. and decided. Hence,
gro (Abella v. obviously the Board of
up, Larrazab manufact Canvassers (BOC)
bef al, G.R. ured will not look into
ore No. returns. allegations of
the 87721- He irregularity that
Boa 30, alleged are not apparent
rd Decembe that the on the face of ERs
or r 21, oral that appear
dire 1989) objection otherwise
ctly s were authentic and
wit Q: Sao timely duly
h was an made, accomplished.
the official and the The Court found
CO candidat written that there is
ME e for petition absolutely no
LEC Municip for indication that
. al Petition the contested ERs
(CO Mayor. for were falsified or
ME Que ran Exclusion tampered with.
LEC for the was filed Claims that
Res same with the contested ERs are
olut position. Municipa obviously
ion Sao l Board of manufactured or
No. alleged Canvasse falsified must be
880 to have rs evident from the
4, witnesse (MBOC). face of the said
Rul d an Were the documents. As
e 3, anomalo allegatio such, there was
Sec. us ns raised no valid ground
1) activity by Sao on to delay the
that the proclamation,
Purpose affected contested since the
the ERs unsubstantiated
To integrity proper in issued raised by
asc of a pre- Sao were not
erta several proclama proper for a pre-
in election tion proclamation
win returns controve controversy. (Sao
ner (ER). rsy? v. COMELEC, G.R.
s in During No. 182221,
the the A: NO. February 2, 2010)
elec canvassi The
tion ng, Sao unsubstan Jurisdiction
s on sought tiated
basi for the issues COMELEC has
s of exclusio raised by exclusive
elec n of the Sao were jurisdiction over
tion conteste not pre-
retu d ERs on proper for proclamation
rns the a pre- cases. It may
dul grounds proclamat order, motu
247
pro suspensi compositio 9369.
prio on of the n or
or proclama proceeding 2. No pre-
upo tion of s of the proclamation
n any Board of cases are
writ candidate Canvassers allowed in
ten -elect or (COMELEC case of
peti annul Res. No. barangay
tion partially 8804, election. (R.A.
, or totally March 22, 6679, Sec. 9)
and any 2010,Rule
afte proclama 3,Sec. 1); Issues that may
r tion, if and be raised (1996
due one has Bar)
noti been NOTE:
ce made, as However, 1. Illegal
and the this does composition
hea evidence not or
ring shall preclude proceedings
the warrant. the of the board
part (OEC, Sec. authority of election
ial 242) of the canvassers;
or appropriat 2. Canvassed
tota Nature and execution e election
l of judgment canvassing returns are
House body, motu either:
of proprio or a. Incomple
It shall be Repres upon te;
heard entativ written b. Contain
summarily es complaint material
by the (R.A. of an defects;
COMELEC. 7166, interested c. Appear to
Its decision Sec. person, to be
shall be 15); correct tampered
executory and manifest with or
after five errors in falsified;
days from XPNs: the or
receipt by a. Co certificate d. Contain
the losing rre of canvass discrepan
party, unless cti or election cies in
otherwise on before it. the same
ordered. of (R.A. 9369, returns
ma Sec. 38) or in
When not nif authentic
allowed est c. Determinat copies;
(2008 Bar) err ion of the
or authenticit 3. The election
1. For the s; y and due returns were:
position b. Qu execution a. Prepared
s of est of under
Preside io certificates duress,
nt, Vice ns of canvass threats,
Preside aff as provided coercion,
nt, ect in Sec. 30 intimidati
Senator in of RA 7166, on; or
and g as b. Obviously
Member th amended manufact
of e by RA ured or

not examination of the proclamation
aut 5. Manifest signatures and controversy
hen errors in thumb marks of
tic; the voters (Matalam v. 1. The period to file
Certificate COMELEC, G.R. No. an election
4. Substitu s of 123230, April 18, contest shall be
ted or Canvass 1997); suspended
fraudule or 3. Prayer for re- during the
nt Election opening of ballot pendency of the
returns Returns. boxes (Alfonso v. pre-
in (R.A. COMELEC, G.R. No. proclamation
controv 7166, Sec. 107847, June 2, contest in the
erted 15; 1994); COMELEC or the
polling Chavez 4. That the padding Supreme Court;
places v. COMELEC, of the List of 2. The right of the
were G.R. No. Voters may prevailing party
canvass 16277, constitute fraud, in the pre-
ed, the August 31, or that the BEI proclamation
results 2004) may have contest to the
of which fraudulently execution of
material NOTE: The conspired in its COMELEC’s
ly enumeration preparation; vote- decision does not
affected is restrictive buying and bar the losing
the and exclusive. terrorism party from filing
standin (Suhuri v. (Ututalum v. an election
g of the Commission COMELEC, G.R. No. contest; and
aggrieve on Elections, 84843-44, January 3. Despite the
d G.R. No. 1990); pendency of a
candida 181869, 5. Challenges directed pre-
te(s); or October 2, against the BEI proclamation
2009) (Ututalum contest, the
v. COMELEC, G.R. COMELEC may
Issues that No. 84843-44, order the
cannot be 22, 1990);and proclamation of
raised 6. Fraud, terrorism other winning
and other illegal candidates
1. Appreciati electoral practices. whose election
on of These are properly will not be
ballots, as within the office of affected by the
this is election contests outcome of the
performe over which controversy.
d by the electoral tribunals
BEI at the have sole, Termination of pre-
precinct exclusive proclamation cases
level and jurisdiction
is not part (Loong v. GR: Pre-
of the COMELEC, G.R. No. proclamation cases
proceedin 93986, December are terminated at the
gs of the 22, 1992). beginning of term of
BOC the officers. (R.A.
(Sanchez Effect of filing of pre- 7166, Sec. 16)
v.
COMELEC, XPNs: meritorious;
G.R. No. 1. When based 2. The SC in a petition for
78461, on certiorari issues a contrary
August evidence, COMELEC order; or
12, 1987); determines that 3. The case is not a pre-
2. Technical petition is proclamation case.
249
(Peñaflorida prejudice to pre- winner entitled to two
v. COMELEC, proclamation seats in the House of
G.R. No. controversy or it Representatives
125950, was made ad . Layug then
November 18, cautelam. filed a motion
1997) for
Petition to annul or reconsideration
Q: Is the suspend the claiming denial
COMELEC proclamation of due process
precluded from for the failure of
exercising It is a remedy where COMELEC to
powers over pre there is a manifest serve him, his
proclamation error on the face of the representatives
controversies, transmitted returns or a copy of said
when the variance of results from resolution.
Electoral the election returns and However, said
Tribunal CoC, and a winning motion was
acquires candidate is about to denied. Hence,
jurisdiction? be, or has already been Layug filed a
proclaimed on the basis petition for
A: thereof. Certiorari
GR: YES. under Rule 65
COMELEC is The COMELEC is before the
precluded from required to hear the Supreme Court
exercising petition immediately imputing grave
powers over pre- and the ballots may be abuse of
proclamation ordered to be manually discretion on
controversies recounted to verify the the part of the
when the manifest errors or COMELEC for
Electoral alleged variance. failure to issue
Tribunal acquires a notice of
jurisdiction. NOTE: The filing of a promulgation to
petition to annul or Layug's counsel
XPNs: suspend the and hear and
1. BOC was proclamation shall decide his
improperly suspend the running of motion for
constituted; the period within reconsideration
2. Proclamation which to file an election . The COMELEC
was null and protest or quo argued that
void; warranto proceedings. since there was
3. Quo warranto already a
is not the Q: Layug, in his proclamation of
proper capacity as a tax Buhay Party List
remedy; payer, filed a petition as winner, the
4. What was to disqualify Buhay HRET and not
filed was a Party-List from the court has
petition to participating in the jurisdiction
annul a May 2010 elections, over the
proclamation and Brother Mike questions
, and not a from being its relating to
quo warranto nominee but the same qualifications.
or election was denied by the Does the court
protest; and COMELEC second have
5. Election division for lack of jurisdiction
contest substantial evidence. over the
expressly Consequently, petition?
made COMELEC proclaimed
without Buhay Party-List as A: YES. Section 6

of and y 28, of the winning
the hearing, 2012, candidates (quo
Par the PER J. warranto).
ty- registrati PERLAS-
Lis on of any BERNAB Nature and purpose of an
t national, E) election contest
Sys regional
te or It is a special
m sectoral summary
Act party, ELECTION PROTEST proceeding the
sta organizat object of which is
tes ion or Post-election disputes to expedite the
tha coalition. settlement of
t Thus, it is These are controversies
"th the disputes between
e Court, which candidates as to
CO under its arise or who received the
ME power to are majority of legal
LE review instituted votes.
C decisions after
ma , orders, proclama NOTE: Statutes
y or tion of providing for
mo resolutio winning election contests
tu ns of the candidate are to be liberally
pr COMELE s and construed to the
op C which end that the will
rio provided issues of the people in
or under pertain to the choice of
up Section 7, the public officers
on Article casting may not be
ver IX-A of and defeated by mere
ifie the 1987 counting technical
d Constitut of votes objections. It is
co ion and (election imperative that
mp Section 1, protests), his claim be
lai Rule 37 or to the immediately
nt of the eligibility cleared not only
of COMELE or for the benefit of
an C Rules disloyalty the winner but
y of for the
int Procedur
ere e that has sake of public
ste jurisdicti interest, which can 1. COMELEC – It
d on to only be achieved by is the sole
par hear the brushing aside judge of all
ty, instant technicalities of contests
re petition. procedure which relating to
mo (Roland protract and delay elections,
ve o D. the trial of an returns, and
or Layug ordinary action. qualifications
can vs. (Vialogo v. of all elective
cel, Commssi COMELEC, G.R. No. regional,
aft on On 194143, October 4, provincial
er Election 2011) and city
du s, G. R. officials
e No. Where election (reviewable
not 192984, protests can be by SC under
ice Februar filed Rule 64 using
251
Rule d to office.
65); COME Effect if the
LEC. Content of an protestant accepts
NOTE: election protest a permanent
Decision Grounds appointment
s of for the It must be initiated
COMEL filing of by filing a protest Acceptance of a
EC en election that must contain permanent
banc are protests the following appointment to a
appeala allegations: regular office during
ble to 1. Fraud; the pendency of his
SC(200 2. Vote- 1. The protest is an
1 Bar). buying protestant abandonment of the
; is a electoral protest. The
2. Presiden 3. Terror candidate same is true if a
tial ism; who duly protestant
Electora 4. Presen filed a COC voluntarily sought
l ce of and was election to an office
Tribuna flying voted for in whose term would
l– voters; the extend beyond the
Against 5. Misrea election; expiry date of the
the ding or 2. The term of the contested
Preside misap protestee office, and after
nt and preciat has been winning the said
Vice ion of proclaimed election, took her
Preside ballots ; and oath and assumed
nt; ; 3. The office and there after
3. SET – 6. Disenf petition continuously serves
Against ranchi was filed it. The reason for this
a semen within ten is that the dismissal
senator; t of (10) days of the protest would
4. HRET – voters; after the serve public interest
Against 7. Unqual proclamati as it would dissipate
a ified on. (Miro v. the aura of
represe memb COMELEC, uncertainty as to the
ntative; ers of G.R. No. L- results of the
5. RTC – board 57574, presidential election,
Over of April 20, thereby enhancing
contests electio 1983) the all-to crucial
for n political stability of
municip inspect the nation during this
al or; and period of national
officials 8. Other recovery (Santiago v.
which electio Ramos, P.E.T. Case
may be n No. 001, February 13,
appeale irregul 1996).
d to arities.
COMEL In assuming the
EC; and NOTE: office of Senator, one
6. MeTC or Pendency has effectively
MTC – of election abandoned or
For protest is withdrawn this
baranga not protest. Such
y sufficient abandonment or
officials basis to withdrawal operates
which enjoin the to render moot the
may be protestee instant protest.
appeale from Moreover, the
assuming

dismissal of “Good reasons” from the decision. The
this protest view that execution Quo warrant refers to an
would serve A combination of pending appeal should election contest relating to the
public interest two or more of still continue qualifications of an elective
as it would the following: notwithstanding a official on the ground of (1)
dissipate the decision of the higher ineligibility or (2) disloyalty
aura of 1. That court enjoining such to the Republic of the
uncertainty as public execution—does not Philippines. The issue is
to the results of interest is make sense. It will whether respondent possesses
the election. involved render quite inutile the all the qualifications and none
(Legarda v. De or the will proceedings before of the disqualifications
Castro, PET of the such court. (Panlilio v. prescribed by law. (A.M. No.
case no. 003, electorate COMELEC, G.R. No. 07-4-15-SC, May 15, 2007)
January 18, ; 184286, February 26,
2008) 2. The 2010) Jurisdiction
shortness
Requisites for of the Best pieces of evidence NOTE: Quo warranto
an execution remaining in an election contest proceedings against a
pending portion of Congressman-elect, Senator-
appeal in the term 1. Ballots are the best elect, President-elect and VP-
election of the and most elect are brought before the
protest cases contested conclusive appropriate electoral tribunals
office; or evidence in an created by the Constitution.
1. It must be 3. The election contest
upon length of where the Quo warranto proceedings
motion by time that correctness of the against any regional, provincial
the the number of votes of or city officials are brought
prevailing election each candidate is before the COMELEC.
party with contest involved (Delos
notice to has been Reyes, G.R. No. Quo warranto proceedings
the adverse pending. 170070, February against municipal officials and
party; (Ramas v. 28, 2007); and barangay officials are brought
2. There must COMELEC, 2. Election returns before the RTCs and MTCs
be good G.R. No. are the best respectively.
reasons for 130831. evidence when the
the said February ballots are lost,
execution; 10, 1998) destroyed,
and tampered or fake.
3. The order NOTE: If
granting instead of Right to withdraw
the said issuing a
execution preliminary A protestant has the
must state injunction in right to withdraw his
the good place of a protest or drop polling
reasons. TRO, a court places from his protest.
(Navarosa opts to decide The protestee, in such
v. the case on its cases, has no cause to
COMELEC, merits with complain because the
G.R. No. the result that withdrawal is the
157957, it also enjoins exclusive prerogative of
September 18, the same acts the protestant.
2003) covered by its
TRO, it stands QUO
WARRANTO
to reason that the injunction. Such
decision amounts injunction should be Quo warranto
to a grant of deemed in force proceeding for an
preliminary pending any appeal elective office
253
Ele filing an protest or acquisition Act
ctio election a petition of 2003. On
n protest for quo April 8, 2013,
pro or a warranto, Jeninah filed an
test petition all MR claiming
vs. for quo questions that she is a
Qu warrant relative natural-born
o o thereto Filipino citizen,
wa will have but it was
rra Generally to be denied by
nto , it bars decided in COMELEC on
cas the the case May 14 for lack
e subseque itself and of merit
und nt filing not in
er of a pre- another
the proclama proceedin
OE tion g.
C controver (Villamor
(20 sy or a v.
01, petition COMELEC,
200 to annul G.R. No.
6 proclama 169865,
Bar tion. It July 21,
) also 2006)
amounts
BASIS ELECTIONto the Q: In
PROTESTabandon March
ment of 2013,
one filed COMELEC
By a losing earlier, First
candidate forthus, Division
depriving
the same office issued a
for which thethe resolutio
COMELE
winner filed his n
Who
COC. C of the cancellin
may file
authority g
to inquire Jeninah’s
into and CoC on
pass the
upon the ground
Who receivedtitle of that she
the majority or
the is not a
plurality of the
protestee citizen of
votes which or the the
were legally validity Philippin
cast? of his es
proclama because
Issue/s
Whether there tion. of her
were Once the failure to
irregularitiescompete
in comply
the conduct ofnt with the
the election tribunal requirem
which affectedhas ents of
its results. acquired the
jurisdicti Citizenshi
Eff on over p
ect an Retention
of election and Re-

and declared it final and executory. Jeninah,
however, was proclaimed the winner of the
May 2013 elections, and took her oath of office
but is yet to assume office on June 30, 2013.
Jeninah contends that COMELEC lost
jurisdiction pursuant to Sec. 17, Art. 6 of the
1897 Constitution which states that HRET has
the exclusive jurisdiction to be the “sole judge
of all contests relating to the election, returns
and qualifications” of the Members of the HOR.
Is the contention of Jeninah correct?
A: NO. The Court has invariably held that once a

winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his
oath, and assumed office as a Member of the HOR,
the COMELEC's jurisdiction over election contests
relating to his election, returns, and qualifications
ends, and the HRET's own jurisdiction
begins. Here, Jeninah, the winning candidate
cannot be considered a Member of the HOR
because, primarily, he has not yet assumed
office. To repeat what has earlier been said, the
term of office of a Member of the HOR begins only
“at noon on the 30th day of June next following
their election.” Thus, until such time, the
COMELEC retains jurisdiction. (Reyes v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013)
Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Q: In 2008, the DSWD launched the "Pantawid Pamilyang
PRINCIPLES OF LOCAL AUTONOMY Pilipino Program" (4Ps). This government intervention
scheme "provides cash grant to extreme poor households
The principle of local autonomy essentially means to allow the members of the families to meet certain
decentralization. Autonomy is either (1) human development goals." A Memorandum of Agreement
decentralization of administration or (2) executed by the DSWD with each participating LGU
decentralization of power. outlines in detail the obligation of both parties during the
intended five-year implementation. Congress, for its part,
Decentralization of administration sought to ensure the success of the 4Ps by providing it with
funding. Does this encroach upon the local autonomy of
There is decentralization of administration when the LGUs?
the central government delegates administrative
powers to political subdivisions in order to A: NO. The purpose of the delegation is to make governance
broaden the base of government power and in the more directly responsive and effective at the local levels. But to
process make local governments ‘more enable the country to develop as a whole, the programs and
responsive and more accountable’ and ensure policies effected locally must be integrated and coordinated
their fullest development as self-reliant towards a common national goal. Thus, policy-setting for the
communities and make them more effective entire country still lies in the President and Congress. While
partners in the pursuit of national development the Local Government Code charges the LGUs to take on the
and social progress.’ functions and responsibilities that have already been devolved
upon them from the national agencies on the aspect of
Decentralization of power providing for basic
On the other hand, decentralization of power

“involves as abdication of political power in favor
of local government units declared to be
autonomous. This is termed as devolution. (The
Local Government Code Revisited 2011 Ed., p. 8,
services and facilities in their exercise governmental powers. On the other hand,
respective jurisdictions, the same as a corporate entity, they exercise powers which
law provides a categorical exception are proprietary in nature but which they can
of cases involving nationally-funded perform for the benefit of their constituencies (The
projects, facilities, programs and Local Government Code Revisited 2011 ed., p. 62,
services. The national government Aquilino Pimentel, Jr.).
is, thus, not precluded from taking a
direct hand in the formulation and Under Philippine laws, the City of Manila is a
implementation of national political body corporate and as such (is) endowed
development programs especially with the faculties of municipal corporations to be
where it is implemented locally in exercised by and through its city government in
coordination with the LGUs conformity with law, and in its proper corporate
concerned. (Pimentel, Jr. vs. name. It may sue and be sued, and contract and be
Executive Secretary Ochoa, G.R.
No. 195770, July 17, 2012, PER J.
PERLAS- BERNABE)
Presidential Power of Supervision
Autonomy, however, is not meant to

end the relation of partnership and
interdependence between the
central administration and local
government units. Local
governments, under the
Constitution, are subject to
regulation, however limited, and for
no other purpose than precisely,
albeit paradoxically, to enhance self-
government. (Ganzon v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 93252, August 5,
1991)
The president’s power over LGUs is

now limited to supervision, not
control.
The president exercises “general

supervision” over the LGUs, but
only to “ensure that local affairs are
administered according to law.” It
means “overseeing or the authority
of an officer to see that the
subordinate officer perform their
duties. If the subordinate officers
fail or neglect to fulfill their duties,
the official may take such action or
steps as prescribed by law to make
them perform their duties. (The
Local Government Code Revisited,
2011 Ed., p. 14, Aquilino Pimentel Jr.)
LGU Dual Personality
LGUs have a dual personality:

political and corporate. Being political
units of government and as agents of
the national government, LGUs
LocAl GoveRNMents
Autonomous Regions
contracted with. Its powers are twofold in
character-public, governmental or political on the
one hand, and corporate, private and proprietary
on the other. Governmental powers are those
exercised in administering the powers of the state
and promoting the public welfare and they include
the legislative, judicial, public and political.
Municipal powers on the one hand are exercised
for the special benefit and advantage of the
community and include those which are
ministerial, private and corporate (City of Manila v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71159,
November 15, 1989).
Local Fiscal Autonomy
Fiscal autonomy means that local governments

have the power to create their own sources of
revenue in addition to their equitable share in the
national taxes released by the national
government, as well as the power to allocate their
resources in accordance with their own priorities.
It extends to the preparation of their budgets, and
local officials in turn have to work within the
constraints thereof. They are not formulated at
the national level and imposed on local
governments, whether they are relevant to local
needs and resources or not. Further, a basic
feature of local fiscal autonomy is the
constitutionally mandated automatic release of
the shares of local governments in the national
internal revenue. (Province of Batangas v. Romulo,
G.R. No. 152774, May 27, 2004)
Automatic release of LGU shares
The shares of the LGUs in the central government

taxes and in the proceeds of natural resources
within their territories shall be automatically and
directly released to them. (The Local Government
Code Revisited 2011 Ed., p. 129, Aquilino Pimentel
Jr.)
NOTE: A “no report, no release” policy may not be

validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal
autonomy such as Constitutional Commissions
and local governments. The automatic release
provision found in the Constitution means that
these local government units cannot be required
to perform any act to receive the “just share”
accruing to them from the national coffers. (Civil
Service Commission v. Department of Budget and
Management, G.R. No. 158791, July 22, 2005)
AUTONOMOUS REGIONS AND THEIR

RELATION TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
POLITICAL LAW
units, public works, general supervision
social services,
Provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical tourism, and trade The President shall exercise
areas sharing common and distinctive historical and and industry. general supervision over
cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and autonomous regions to
other relevant characteristics. (Sec. 15, Art. X, 1987 In relation to the ensure that the laws are
Constitution) National faithfully executed. (Sec. 16,
Government, Section Art. X, 1987 Constitution)
Autonomous region is a form of local government 1, Article V of R.A.
No. 11054 states that Limitation of powers and
The inclusion of autonomous regions in the “all powers, functions of autonomous
enumeration of political subdivisions of the State functions, and regions
under the heading "Local Government" indicates responsibilities not
quite clearly the constitutional intent to consider granted by the All powers, functions, and
autonomous regions as one of the forms of local Constitution or by responsibilities not granted
governments. (Kida v. Senate, GR No. 196271, national law to the by the Constitution or by
February 28, 2012) Bangsamoro law to the autonomous
Government shall be regions shall be vested in
Constitution mandates the creation of vested in the the National Government.
autonomous regions only in Muslim Mindanao National (Sec. 17, Art. X, 1987
and Cordilleras Government.” Constitution)
There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Also, Section 1, Within its territorial
Mindanao and in the Cordilleras within the Article VI thereof jurisdiction and subject to
framework of the Constitution and the national provides that the the provisions of this
sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the President shall Constitution and national
Republic of the Philippines. (Sec. 15, Art. X, 1987 exercise general laws, the organic act of
Constitution) supervision over the autonomous regions shall
Bangsamoro provide for legislative
The Congress shall enact an organic act for each Government to powers over:
autonomous region. The organic act shall define the ensure that laws are
basic structure of government for the region faithfully executed. (1) Administrative
consisting of the executive department and legislative The President may organization;
assembly, both of which shall be elective and suspend the Chief
representative of the constituent political units. The Minister for a period (2) Creation of sources of
organic acts shall likewise provide for special courts not exceeding six (6) revenues;
with personal, family, and property law jurisdiction months for willful
consistent with the provisions of this Constitution violation of the (3) Ancestral domain and
and national laws. (Sec. 18, Art. X, 1987 Constitution) Constitution, natural resources;
national laws, or this
NOTE: As of now (2019), there is only one Organic Law. (4) Personal, family, and
autonomous region created -- the Autonomous property relations;
Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Several On the aspect of
attempts have been made in the Cordilleras to create intergovernmental (5) Regional urban
an autonomous region but has repeatedly failed. relations, an and rural
Intergovernmental planning
Organic Law for the Bangsamoro Autonomous Relations Body was
Region in Muslim Mindanao (RA 11054) created to
coordinate and
R.A. No. 11054 abolished ARMM and placed in its resolve issues on
stead the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim intergovernmental
Mindanao (BARMM). It also created the Bangsamoro relations through
Government which has exclusive powers over some regular consultation
matters including budgeting, administration of and continuing
justice, agriculture, disaster risk negotiation in a non-
adversarial manner.
reduction and ancestral domains, human
management, rights, local government President exercises
LocAl GoveRNMents
development; for defense General welfare ion of general
and security clause welfare.
(6) Economic, social, Within their
and tourism The LGUs respective
development; preservation of shall territorial
peace and exercis jurisdiction,
(7) Educational order within e LGUs shall
policies; the regions powers ensure and
shall be the that are support,
(8) Pres responsibility necessa among other
ervatio of the local ry, things, the
n and police agencies approp preservation
develop which shall be riate, or and
ment of organized, inciden enrichment of
the maintained, tal for culture,
cultural supervised, and its promote
heritage utilized in efficien health and
; and accordance t and safety,
with applicable effectiv enhance the
(9) Suc laws. The e right of the
h other defense and govern people to a
matters security of the ance, balanced
as may regions shall be and ecology,
be the those encourage and
authoriz responsibility which support the
ed by of the National are development
law for Government. essenti of appropriate
the (Sec. 21, Art. X, al to and self-
promoti 1987 the reliant
on of Constitution) promot scientific and
the
general LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS Legislativ
welfare POWERS e Power –
of the technological Authorize
people The following powers of capabilities, s the
of the LGUs: improve public municipal
region. morals, enhance council to
(Sec. 20, a. Police Power economic enact
Art. X, b. Eminent Domain prosperity and ordinanc
1987 c. Taxation social justice, es and
Constitu d. Legislative Power promote full make
tion) employment regulatio
POLICE POWER (GENERAL among its ns not
Local WELFARE CLAUSE) residents, repugnan
police maintain peace t to law,
respon Nature of police power and order, and as may be
sible preserve the necessary
for The police comfort and to carry
peace power of the convenience of into
and LGU is not their inhabitance. effect and
order inherent. LGUs (R.A. 7160, Sec. discharge
but exercise the 16) the
nationa police power powers
l under the Two branches and
govern general welfare of the General duties
ment clause (LGC, Sec. Welfare Clause conferred
respon 16,). upon the
sible 1. General municipal
POLITICAL LAW
council by and not duly presence of
law. oppressive compelling, College, G.R. No.
2. Police Power (Due Process rather than 161107, March
Proper – Clause) substantial, 12, 2013)
Authorizes 3. Exercisable government
the only within al interest Q: The
municipality the and on the Sangguniang
to enact territorial absence of Panlungsod of
ordinances as limits of the less Davao City
may be LGU, except restrictive enacted an
necessary for means for ordinance
and proper protection achieving imposing a ban
for the health of water that against aerial
and safety, supply interest. spraying as an
prosperity, (LGC, Sec. (Fernando agricultural
morals, 16) v. St. practice by all
peace, good 4. Must not be Scholastica’ agricultural
order, contrary to s entities within
comfort, and the Davao City.
convenience Constitutio Pursuant to the
of the n and the ordinance, the
municipality laws. ban against
and its aerial spraying
inhabitants, NOTE: There would be strictly
and for the must be a enforced three
protection of concurrence of a months
their lawful subject thereafter. The
property and lawful Pilipino Banana
(Rural Bank method. Growers and
of Makati v. (Lucena Grand Exporters
Municipality Central v. JAC, Association, Inc.
of Makati, G.R. No. 148339 (PBGEA) filed a
July 2, 2004). February 23, petition in the
2005) RTC to challenge
Requisites/limit the
ations for the Tests when constitutionality
proper exercise police power of the ordinance,
of the police is invoked as alleging that the
power (PREN) the rationale ordinance
for the valid exemplified the
1. The interests passage of an unreasonable
of the public ordinance exercise of
generally, as police power
distinguished from 1. Rational and violated the
those of a relationshi equal protection
particular class, p test – An clause. The RTC
require the ordinance declared that
interference of the must pass the ordinance is
state(Equal the valid and
Protection Clause) requisites constitutional
as saying that the
2.The means discussed City of Davao
employed are above. had validly
reasonably 2. Strict exercised police
necessary for the scrutiny power under the
attainment of the test – The General Welfare
object sought to focus is on Clause of the
be accomplished the Local
LocAl GoveRNMents
Government Code the purported they effect the the exercise of police
and that the inconvenience, extrajudicial power and the general
ordinance was discomfort, health abatement of a welfare clause, property
consistent with the risk and nuisance per rights of individuals may be
Equal Protection environmental accidens. Those subjected to restraints and
Clause. On appeal, danger which the things must be burdens in order to fulfill
however, the CA ordinance seeks to resolved by the the objectives of the
reversed the address. Theburden courts in the government.
judgment of the RTC. will now become ordinary course of
Is the ordinance more onerous to law. (AC Enterprises, Otherwise stated, the
valid? various entities, Inc. v. Frabelle government may enact
including those with Properties Corp., G.R. legislation that may
A:NO. Requiring the no connection No. 166744, interfere with personal
respondents and whatsoever to the November 2, 2006) liberty, property, lawful
other affected intended purpose of businesses and occupations
individuals to comply the ordinance. Q: The Mayor of to promote the general
with the (Mosqueda vs. Malay, Aklan welfare.
consequences of the Pilipino Banana ordered through
ban within the three- Growers & Exporters Executive Order One such piece of
month period under Assoc., G.R. No. No. 10 the legislation is the LGC,
pain of penalty like 189185 & 189305, demolition of the which authorizes city and
fine, imprisonment August 16, 2016) Boracay West Cove municipal governments,
and even cancellation Resort and Hotel acting through their local
of business permits Ministerial duty without first chief executives, to issue
would definitely be of the Local conducting judicial demolition orders. Under
oppressive as to Chief Executive proceedings on the existing laws, the office of
constitute abuse of ground that the the mayor is given powers
police power. The LGC imposes said hotel was built not only relative to its
upon the city mayor, on a "no build function as the executive
The ordinance violated to “enforce all laws zone" as official of the town; it has
the equal protection and ordinances demarcated in also been endowed with
clause. The imposition relative to the Municipal authority to hear issues
of the ban is too broad governance of the Ordinance 2000- involving property rights of
because the ordinance city.” As the chief 131. The owner of individuals and to
applies irrespective of executive of the city, the Boracay West
the substance to be he has the duty to Cove imputed grave
aerially applied and enforce an ordinance abuse of discretion
irrespective of the as long as it has not on the part of the
agricultural activity to been repealed by the Mayor. Is the owner
be conducted. Such Sanggunian or correct?
imposition becomes annulled by the
unreasonable courts. He has no A: NO. Generally,
inasmuch as it patently other choice. It is his LGUs have no power
bears no relation to to declare a
particular thing as a
ministerial duty to do applies to nuisance per se or nuisance unless such
so. (Social Justice those which affect the a thing is a nuisance
Society v. Atienza, Jr., immediate safety of persons per se. Despite the
G.R. No. 156052, March and property and may be hotel’s classification
7, 2007) summarily abated under the as a nuisance per
undefined law of necessity. accidens, however,
Abatement of (Tayaban v. People, G.R. No. the Court still found
nuisance without 150194, March 6, 2007) in this case that the
judicial proceeding LGU may
The LGUs have no power to nevertheless
The abatement of declare a particular thing as a properly order the
nuisances without nuisance unless such a thing hotel’s demolition.
judicial proceedings is a nuisance per se; nor can This is because, in
POLITICAL LAW
come out of Boracay West under root cause of
with an Cove’s hotel in the this debacle-
effective Malay, Aklan. To admini compliance.
order or recall, Boracay stration (Aquino v.
resolutio West Cove of the Municipality
n declared that DENR of Malay,
thereon. the application is of no Aklan, supra.)
Pertinent for zoning momen
herein is compliance was t, for Powers
Sec. 444 still pending what is deemed
(b)(3)(vi) with the office involve implied in
of the of the mayor d the power to
LGC, even though herein, grant
which construction strictly permits and
empower and operation speakin licenses
ed the were already g, is not
mayor to ongoing at the an Power to
order the same time. As issue issue licenses
closure such, it could no on and permits
and longer be environ include power
removal denied that it mental to revoke,
of openly violated protecti withdraw, or
illegally Municipal on, restrict
construct Ordinance conserv through the
ed 2000-131 ation of imposition of
establish (Aquino v. natural certain
ments Municipality of resourc conditions.
for Malay, Aklan, es, and However, the
failing to G.R. No. 211356, the conditions
secure September 29, mainte must be
the 2014). nance reasonable
necessar of and cannot
y NOTE: Based on ecologi amount to an
permits. law and cal arbitrary
jurisprudence, balance interference
In the the office of the , but with the
case at mayor has the business.
bar, quasi-judicial legality (Acebedo
Boracay powers to order or Optical
West the closing and illegalit Company, Inc.
Cove demolition of y of the v. CA, G.R. No.
admitted establishments. structu 100152,
ly failed This power re. March 31,
to secure granted by the Rather 2000)
the LGC, is not the than
necessar same power treating Object of the permit
y devolved in this as requirement
permits, favor of the LGU an
clearance under Sec. 17 environ The object of
s, and (b)(2)(ii), which mental the permit
exemptio is subject to issue requirement
ns before review by the then, is the proper
the DENR. The fact focus supervision of
construct that the building should the
ion, to be not be enumerated
expansio demolished is diverte businesses,
n, and located within a d from trades, or
operation forestland the occupation.
LocAl GoveRNMents
permits and licenses is a exclusive aesthetic
NOTE: The issuance of domain of the purposes.
administrative (Physical
function of the business agency Therapy
local chief permits, if for a specifically Organization
executive. regulatory empowered by of the
purpose, is law to supervise Philippines v.
Q: Acebedo within the ambit the profession, Municipal
Optical Company of this power. in this case the Board of
applied with the This power Professional Manila, G.R.
Office of the City necessarily Regulations No. L-10488,
Mayor of Iligan includes the Commission and August 30,
for a business power to revoke the Board of 1957)
permit. The City and to impose Examiners in
Mayor issued conditions. Optometry.
such permit However, the (Acebedo
subject to special power to grant Optical
conditions that or issue licenses Company Inc. v.
the company or business Court of Appeals,
cannot put up an permits must G.R. No. 100152,
optical clinic but always be March 31, 2000)
only a exercised in
commercial accordance with NOTE:
store; it cannot law, with utmost However,
examine patients observance of certain
and prescribe the rights of all professions may
glasses; and it concerned to be affected by
cannot sell due process and the exercise of
eyeglasses equal protection police power.
without a of the law. What An ordinance in
prescription is sought by Manila was held
from an Acebedo from not to regulate
independent the City Mayor is the practice of
optometrist. a permit to massage, much
Samahan ng engage in the less restrict the
Optometrist ng business of practice of such
Pilipinas lodged running an profession.
a complaint optical shop. It Instead, the end
against Acebedo does not purport sought to be
for violating the to seek a license obtained was to
conditions which to engage in the prevent the
resulted in the practice of commission of
revocation of its optometry. A immorality
permit. Did the business permit under the
City Mayor have is issued practice of
the authority to primarily to prostitution in
impose special regulate the an
conditions in the conduct of establishment
grant of the business and the masquerading
business permit? City Mayor as a massage
cannot, through clinic where the
A: NO. Police the issuance of operation
power is such permit, thereof offers to
essentially regulate the massage
regulatory in practice of a superficial parts
nature and the profession. Such of the bodies of
power to issue a function is customers for
license or grant within the hygienic or
POLITICAL LAW
Q: The Sangguniang their property. nationality, age, the rate of
Panglungsod of (Fernando v. St. address, and prostitution,
Marikina City Scholastica's occupation before adultery, and
enacted an College, G.R. No. they could be fornication in
ordinance 161107, March 12, admitted to a Manila traceable
“Regulating the 2013) motel, hotel, or in great part to
Construction of lodging house? the existence of
Fences and Walls in Q: Can the City motels, which
the City of Mayor of Manila A: YES. The "provide a
Marikina”. The validly take Ordinance was necessary
ordinance provided, custody of several enacted precisely to atmosphere for
among others, that women of ill minimize certain clandestine entry,
fences should not be repute and practices hurtful to presence, and
more than 1 meter deport them as public morals such exit" and thus
and fences in excess laborers without as the increase in become the
of 1 meter shall be knowledge and
80% see-thru. It consent to the "ideal haven for inns, lodging houses,
further provided said deportation? prostitutes and pension houses and
that in no case shall thrill-seekers". similar establishments in
walls and fences be A: NO. One can Precisely it was the City of Manila.
built within the five search in vain for intended to curb the Petitioners argued that
meter parking area any law, order, or opportunity for the the Ordinance is
allowance located regulation, which immoral or unconstitutional and void
between the front even hints at the legitimate use to since it violates the right
monument line and right of the Mayor which such premises to privacy and the
the building line of of the city of Manila could be and are freedom of movement; it
commercial and or the chief of being devoted. is an invalid exercise of
industrial police of that city (Ermita- Malate police power; and it is an
establishments and to force citizens of Hotel and Motel unreasonable and
educational and the Philippine Operations oppressive interference
religious Islands — and Association v. City in their business. Is the
institutions. Is the these women Mayor of Manila, G.R. ordinance valid?
ordinance valid? despite their being No. L-24693, July 31,
in a sense lepers of 1967) A: NO. Individual rights
A: NO. It has long society are may be adversely affected
been settled that the nevertheless not Q: Mayor Lim only to the extent that may
State may not, under chattels but signed into law, fairly be required by the
the guise of police Philippine citizens City Ordinance legitimate demands of
power, permanently protected by the 7774, which public interest or public
divest owners of the same constitutional prohibits short welfare. However well-
beneficial use of their guaranties as are time admission in intentioned the Ordinance
property solely to other citizens — to hotels, motels, may be, it is in effect an
preserve or enhance change their lodging houses, arbitrary and whimsical
the aesthetic domicile from pension houses, intrusion into the rights of
appearance of the Manila to another and similar the establishments as well
community. locality. establishments in as their patrons. The
Compelling the (Villavicencio v. the City of Manila Ordinance needlessly
respondents to Lukban, G.R. No. L- to protect public restrains the operation of
construct their fence 14639, March 25, morals. Pursuant the businesses of the
in accordance with 1919) to the above policy, petitioners as well as
the assailed short-time restricting the rights of
ordinance is, thus, a Q: May an LGU admission and their patrons without
clear encroachment require customers rate, wash-up rate sufficient justification. The
on their right to to fill out a or other similarly Ordinance rashly equates
property, which prescribed form concocted terms, wash rates and renting out
necessarily includes stating personal are hereby a room more than twice a
their right to decide information such prohibited in day with immorality
how best to protect as name, gender, hotels, motels, without accommodating
LocAl GoveRNMents
innocuous intentions comm the LGUs.
(White Light Corp., v. prohibiting the ercial Under this
City of Manila, G.R. No. disco pub buildi ordinance,
122846, January 20, owners and the ngs to the city
2009). hospitality girls be council
from pursuing constr required that
Q: The Sangguniang their calling or ucted the arcade is
Panlungsod of Pasay business but is in to be created
City passed an merely zones in a way that
ordinance requiring regulating it. design building
all disco pub owners (Social Justice ated owners are
to have all their Society v. as not allowed
hospitality girls Dangerous busine to construct
tested for the AIDS Drugs Board, ss his wall up
virus. Both disco pub G.R. No. zones to the edge
owners and the 157870, Nov. 3, in the of the
hospitality girls 2008) zoning property
assailed the validity plan of line, thereby
of the ordinance for This ordinance Quezo creating a
being violative of is a valid n City, space under
their constitutional exercise of along the first
rights to privacy and police power, EDSA. floor. In
to freely choose a because its Howev effect,
calling or business. Is purpose is to er, at property
the ordinance valid? safeguard the owners
Explain. public health. time relinquish
(Beltran v. the the use of the
A: YES. The ordinance Secretary of ordina space as an
is a valid exercise of Health, G.R. No. nce arcade for
police power. The 133640, was pedestrians
right to privacy yields November 25, passe instead of
to certain paramount 2005) d using the
rights of the public there property for
and defers to the NOTE: was their own
exercise of police Municipal yet no purposes.
power. The ordinance corporations buildi
is not cannot prohibit ng Subsequentl
the operation of code y, Justice
night clubs. passe Gancayo
They may be d by sought to be
regulated, but the exempted
not prevented legisla from the
from carrying ture. application
on their Thus, of the
business. (Dela the ordinance to
Cruz v. Paras, regula which the
G.R. Nos. L- tion of City Council
42571-72, July the responded
25, 1983) constr favorably in
uction his favor.
Q: The Quezon of the
City Council buildi MMDA then
issued ngs sent a notice
Ordinance are of demolition
2904 which left to to Justice
requires the the Gancayco
construction of discre alleging that
arcades for tion of a portion of
POLITICAL LAW
his In the exercise authorized to public water
building of police power, purify the supply of
violates property rights source of water Manila with
the of individuals supply as well water taken
National may be subject as the drainage from that part
Buildin to restraints area of such of the
g Code and burdens in water supply. Mariquina
in order to fulfill Rivera River, in the
relation the objectives of contented that waters of
to the the the municipal which Rivera
ordinan government. court of the washed
ce. Is Property rights City of Manila clothes. Public
the must bow down and the Court water supply
Ordinan to the primacy of First is not limited
ce a of police power Instance of the to water
valid because it must City of Manila supply owned
exercise yield to the had no and controlled
of general welfare. jurisdiction to by a municipal
police It is clear that try her for the corporation,
power the objective of crime but should be
in the ordinance committed. construed as
regulati were the health Does the CFI of meaning a
ng the and safety of Manila have supply of
use of the city and its jurisdiction water for
propert inhabitants. At over the public and
y in a the time he offense, domestic use,
busines ordinance was considering furnished or to
s zone? passed, there that the be furnished
was no national washing of from water
A: YES. building code, clothes was in works. The
thus the Mariquina provisions of
River? the Ordinance
there was no law supplied to No. 149 would
which prohibits Manila by the A: YES. be
the city council Santolan Boundaries meaningless
from regulating pumping usually mark and absurd if
the construction of station. She the limit for the made
buildings, arcades was charged exercise of the applicable only
and sidewalks in with violation police powers to the Santolan
their jurisdiction. of Sec. 4(f) of by the pumping
(Gancayco v. City Ordinance No. municipality. station and not
Government of 149 which However, in to that part of
Quezon City, G.R. prohibited certain the Mariquina
No. 177807, Oct. washing of instances – the River
11, 2011) garments in the performance of immediately
waters of any police functions, above it and
Q: Rivera was river or water the preservation from which
found washing course. of public health the pumping
her clothing near Manila’s and acquisition station draws
the Santolan municipal of territory for water for the
pumping station board adopted water supply – use of the
near Boso-Boso the same the municipality inhabitants of
dam. Rivera’s act section by is granted police the City of
of washing virtue of the power beyond Manila.
clothing Acts of the its boundaries. (Rivera v.
interfered with Philippine The Santolan Campbell, G.R.
the purity of the Commission pumping station No. L- 11119,
water which was and was is a part of the March 23,
LocAl GoveRNMents
1916) their parents, be restricted, the
operations. guardians, or restrictions must
Q: Following the persons of legal be minimal or
campaign of The Manila age having only to the extent
President Ordinance cites authority over necessary to
Duterte to only four (4) them; (f) those achieve the
implement a exemptions, involved in purpose or to
nationwide namely: (a) accidents, address the
curfew for minors calamities, and State's compelling
minors, Navotas accompanied by the like. It also interest.
City and the City their parents, exempts minors
of Manila started family members of from the curfew The Manila and
to strictly legal age, or during these Navotas
implement their guardian; (b) specific occasions: Ordinances are
curfew those running Christmas eve, not narrowly
ordinances on lawful errands Christmas day, drawn in that
minors through such as buying of New Year's eve, their exceptions
police medicines, using New Year's day, are inadequate
of the night before and therefore, run
telecommunicatio the barangay the risk of overly
n facilities for fiesta, the day of restricting the
emergency the fiesta, All minors'
purposes and the Saints' and All fundamental
like; (c) night Souls' Day, Holy freedoms. To be
school students Thursday, Good fair, both
and those who, by Friday, Black ordinances
virtue of their Saturday, and protect the rights
employment, are Easter Sunday. to education, to
required in the gainful
streets or outside Petitioners argue employment, and
their residence that the Curfew to travel at night
after 10:00 p.m.; Ordinances are from school or
and unconstitutional work. However,
(d) those working at because they even with those
night. deprive minors of safeguards, the
the right to liberty Navotas
For its part, the and the right to Ordinance and, to
Navotas travel without a greater extent,
Ordinance substantive due the Manila
provides more process. Are said Ordinance still do
exceptions, to wit: ordinances valid? not account for
(a) minors with the reasonable
night classes; (b) A: The Manila and exercise of the
those working at Navotas minors' rights of
night; (c) those Ordinances are not association, free
who attended a valid. exercise of
school or church religion,
activity, in While rights may
coordination with
a specific rights to peaceably liberties. The Navotas
barangay office; assemble, and of free Ordinance is apparently
(d) those expression, among more protective of
traveling towards others. The constitutional rights than
home during the exceptions under the the Manila Ordinance;
curfew hours; (e) Manila Ordinance nonetheless, it still provides
those running are too limited, and insufficient safeguards:
errands under the thus, unduly trample First, although it allows
supervision of upon protected minors to engage in school
POLITICAL LAW
or church activities, it ns of Section
hinders them from Q: The City of Manila passed 4 of the
engaging in legitimate a Curfew Ordinance on As Manila
non-school or non- minors which imposes worde Ordinance
church activities in the several penalties for d, the directly and
streets or going to and violators. Petitioners argue prohib irreconcilably
from such activities; that the Curfew Ordinance ition conflict with
thus, their freedom of is unconstitutional because in the clear
association is it contravenes RA 9344's Sectio language of
effectively curtailed. It express command that no n 57-A Section 57-A
bears stressing that penalty shall be imposed on is of RA 9344,
participation in minors for curfew clear, as amended,
legitimate activities of violations. Is petitioners’ catego and hence,
organizations, other contention proper? rical, invalid.
than school or church, and (SPARK, Et.
also contributes to the A:YES. The Manila Ordinance unam al. vs.
minors' social, is in conflict with the clear biguo Quezon City,
emotional, and language of Section 57-A of us. It GR No.
intellectual RA 9344, as amended, and states 225442,
development, yet, such hence, invalid. that August 08,
participation is not "[n]o 2017, PER, J.
exempted under the The law does not prohibit the penalt PERLAS-
Navotas Ordinance. enactment of regulations that y shall BERNABE)
Second, although the curtail the conduct of minors, be
Navotas Ordinance when the similar conduct of impos Q: The
does not impose the adults are not considered as ed on Sanggunian
curfew during an offense or penalized (i.e., childr of Cagayan
Christmas Eve and status offenses). Instead, what en for De Oro
Christmas day, it it prohibits is the imposition x x x enacted
effectively prohibits of penalties on minors for violati Ordinance
minors from attending violations of these ons No. 3353
traditional religious regulations. Consequently, the [of] prohibiting
activities (such as enactment of curfew juvenil the issuance
simbang gabi) at night ordinances on minors, e of business
without accompanying without penalizing them for status permits and
adults, xxx. This violations thereof, is not offens cancelling
legitimate activity violative of Section 57-A. es]." existing
done pursuant to the Thus, business
minors' right to freely for permits for
exercise their religion imposi the
is therefore effectively ng the operation of
curtailed. Third, the sancti casinos; and
Navotas Ordinance ons of Ordinance
does not repri No. 3375-93,
accommodate avenues mand, prohibiting
for minors to engage fine, the
in political rallies or and/o operation of
attend city council r a casino. Z
meetings to voice out impris assailed the
their concerns in line onme validity of
with their right to nt on the
peaceably assemble minor ordinances
and to free expression. s for on the
(SPARK, Et. al. vs. curfe ground that
Quezon City, GR No. w both
225442, August 08, violati violated P.D.
2017, PER, J. PERLAS- ons, 1869 which
BERNABE) portio permits the
LocAl GoveRNMents
operati chance hearin have no
on of including gs or inherent
casinos casinos. This investi power of
, has not been gation eminent
centrali amended by is not domain.
zed and the LGC which one of Local
regulat empowers them. governments
ed by LGUs to can exercise
PAGCO prevent or such power
R. suppress only only when
Howev those forms of EMINENT DOMAIN expressly
er, the gambling authorized
Sanggu prohibited by Local by the
nian law. Casino gover Legislature.
conten gambling is, nment By virtue of
ded however, units the Local
that authorized Government
pursua under P.D.
nt to 1869. This Code, Congress )
the LGC decree has the conferred upon 1. An
they status of a local Ordinance
have statute that government is enacted
the cannot be units the power by the
police annulled or to expropriate. local
power amended by a (Masikip v. City legislative
to mere of Pasig, G.R. No. council
prohibi ordinance. 136349, January authorizin
t the PAGCOR can 23, 2006) g the local
operati set up casinos chief
ons of with or without Strictly executive,
casinos the consent of speaking, the in behalf
for the the host local power of of the
general government. eminent domain LGU, to
welfare (Magtajas v. delegated to an exercise
. Was Pryce LGU is in reality the power
there a Properties and not eminent but of eminent
valid PAGCOR, G.R. “inferior”. The domain or
exercis No. 111097, national pursue
e of July 20, 1994) legislature is expropriat
police still the ion
power? Contempt Powers principal of the proceedin
LGUs, and the g over a
A: NO. Although the latter cannot go particular
P.D. Sanggunian of a against the private
1869 municipality principal’s will property.
creating may exercise or modify the
the certain powers same (Beluso v. NOTE:
PAGCOR under the Municipality of LGU
expressl General Welfare Panay, G.R. No. cannot
y Clause, citing 153974, August authorize
authoriz nonmembers of 7, 2006). an
ed it to the Sanggunian expropria
centrali for contempt or Requisites for tion of
ze and issuing the valid private
regulate subpoena to exercise of the property
all compel non- power of through a
games members to eminent mere
of attend public domain (OPCO resolution
POLITICAL LAW
of its
lawmaking NOTE: The 1. Property sought compliance, the
body. Supreme Court to be acquired issuance of writ
held “the 2. The reason for the of possession
2. It must be for burden is on acquisition becomes
Public use, the LGU to 3. The price offered ministerial. (City
purpose, or prove its of Iloilo v.
welfare or compliance NOTE: Legaspi, G.R. No.
for the with the 1. If owner 154614, Nov. 25,
benefit of the mandatory accepts offer: a 2004)
poor or requirement of contract of sale
landless a valid and will be The advance
definite offer to executed. deposit required
NOTE: the owner of 2. If owner under Section 19
Property the property accepts but at a of the LGC
already before its filing higher price: constitutes an
devoted to of its complaint Local chief advance payment
public use for executive shall only in the event
may not be expropriation. call a the expropriation
taken for Failure to prove conference for prospers. Such
another compliance the purpose of deposit also has a
public use. with the reaching an dual purpose: as
(City of mandatory agreement on pre-payment if the
Manila v. requirement the selling expropriation
Chinese will result in price; If succeeds and as
Community the dismissal of agreed, indemnity for
of Manila, the complaint. contract of sale damages if it is
G.R. No. L- will be drawn. dismissed. This
14355, Due process (Implenting advance payment,
October 31, requirements Rules and a prerequisite for
1919) in eminent Regulations of the issuance of a
domain (PRP) LGC, Art. 35) writ of possession,
3. There must should not be
be payment of Offer must be in Elements for an confused with
just writing authorized payment of just
Compensatio specifying: immediate entry compensation for
n the taking of
1. Filling of a property even if it
4. A valid and complaint for could be a factor
definite Offer expropriation in eventually
has been which is determining just
previously sufficient in compensation. If
made to the form and the proceedings
owner of the substance fail, the money
property 2. Deposit of the could be used to
sought to be amount indemnify the
expropriated equivalent to owner for
, but said fifteen percent damages. (City of
offer was not (15%) of the Manila v. Alegar
accepted. fair market Corporation, G.R.
(Municipality value of the No. 187604, June
of Paranaque property to be 25, 2012)
v. expropriated
V.M. Realty based on its Phases of
Corporation, current tax expropriation
G.R. No. declaration. proceedings
127820. July
20, 1998) NOTE: Upon 1. The
LocAl GoveRNMents
determination declaring that character. It is
of the authority the plaintiff simply not possible The law
of the plaintiff to has a lawful to provide for all at expressly
exercise the right to take once, land and exempted
power of the property shelter, for all who “small
eminent domain sought to be need them. Corollary property
and the condemned, to the expanded owners” from
propriety of its for the public notion of public use, expropriation
exercise in the use or purpose expropriation is not of their land
context of the described in anymore confined to for urban
facts involved in the complaint, vast tracts of land land reform.
the suit. upon the and landed estates. (City of
payment of It is therefore of no Mandaluyong
NOTE: It ends just moment that the v. Aguilar,
with an order, if compensation land sought to be G.R. No.
not dismissal of to be expropriated is less 137152, Jan.
action, of determined as than half a hectare 29, 2001)
condemnation of the only. Through the
years, the public use Satisfaction
date of the filing the Court with the requirement in of “genuine
of the complaint. assistance of not more eminent domain has necessity”
than three (3) evolved into a requiremen
An order of commissioners. The flexible concept, t
dismissal, if this order fixing the just influenced by
be ordained, compensation on the changing conditions. The right to
would be a final basis of the evidence Public use now take private
one, since it before, and findings of, includes the broader property for
finally disposes of the commissioners notion of indirect public
the action and would be final. It would public benefit or purposes
leaves nothing finally dispose of the advantage including necessarily
more to be done second stage of the suit in particular, urban originates
by the Court on and leave nothing more land reform and from “the
the merits. The to be done by the Court housing. (Philippine necessity”
order of regarding the issue. Columbian and the
condemnation (Brgy. San Roque, Association v. Panis, taking must
shall be a final Talisay, Cebu v. Hrs. of G.R. No. L-106528, be limited to
one, as the Rules Francisco Pastor, G.R. Dec. 21, 1993) such
expressly state, in No. 138896, June 20, necessity. In
the proceedings 2000) NOTE: The passage City of
before the Trial of R.A. 7279, the Manila v.
Court, no NOTE: LGU’s prolonged “Urban Development Chinese
objection to the occupation of private and Housing Act of Community
exercise of the property without the benefit 1992” introduced a of Manila, it
right of of expropriation proceedings limitation on the size is held that
condemnation (or entitles the landowner to of the land sought to necessity
the propriety damages. (City of Iloilo v. be expropriated for must be of a
thereof) shall be Judge Contreras-Besana, G.R. socialized housing. public
filed or heard. No. 168967, February 12, character.
2010) Moreover,
2. The the
determination by Satisfaction of “public use” ascertainmen
the RTC of the just requirement t of the
compensation for necessity
the property In case only a few could must precede
sought to be actually benefit from the or
taken. expropriation of the accompany
property, the same does not and not
This is done by diminish its public use follow the
POLITICAL LAW
taking benefit. benefi ng and Land
of the (Masikip v. City t the Use
land. In of Pasig, G.R. subdi Regulatory
City of No. 136349, Jan. vision’ Board, and
Manila 23, 2006) s also be
v. Arella owner relieved of
no Law Q: May LGUs who spending his
College, expropriate a will own funds
the property to be for a right-
necessit provide a able of-way.
y within right-of-way to (Barangay
the rule to residents of circu Sindalan v.
that the a subdivision? mvent CA G.R. No.
particul his 150640,
ar A: NO. comm March 22,
propert Considering itmen 2007)
y to be that the t to
expropr residents who provi Q:
iated need a feeder de Municipality
must be road are all road of Panay
necessa subdivision lot access issued
ry, does owners, it is to the resolutions
not the obligation subdi authorizing
mean an of the vision the
absolute subdivision in municipal
, but owner to conju government
only a acquire a nction through the
reasona right-of-way with Mayor to
ble or for them. his initiate
practica However, the devel expropriatio
l failure of the opme n
necessit subdivision nt proceedings.
y, such owner to permi A petition
as provide an t and for
would access road licens expropriatio
combin does not shift e to n was filed
e the the burden to sell by the
greatest the LGU from Municipality
benefit concerned. To the of Panay.
to the deprive Housi Petitioners
public respondents of
with their property are the owners domain by
the instead of of parcels of the
least compelling the land which are Municipality
inconve subdivision going to be of Panay
nience owner to expropriated valid?
and comply with by the LGU.
expense his obligation Petitioners A: NO. The
to the under the law argue that such LGC expressly
condem is an abuse of expropriation requires an
ning the power of was based only ordinance for
party eminent on a resolution the purpose of
and the domain and is and not on an expropriation,
propert patently ordinance and a
y owner illegal. Worse, contrary to Sec. resolution
consiste the 19 of LGC. Is which merely
nt with expropriation the exercise of expresses the
such will actually eminent sentiment of
LocAl GoveRNMents
the municipal spouses for the opinion.
council will not purpose of Furthermore, verified complaint
suffice. As developing it the remedy of in the proper
respondent's for low cost prohibition was court. Before the
expropriation in housing for the not called for, City as the
this case was less privileged considering that expropriating
based merely on a but deserving only a authority filed
resolution, such city resolution such verified
expropriation is inhabitants. expressing the complaint, no
clearly defective. The spouses desire of the expropriation
While the Court is then filed a Sangguniang proceeding could
aware of the petition for Panglungsod to be said to exist.
constitutional certiorari and expropriate the Until then, the
policy promoting prohibition in petitioners’ petitioners as the
local autonomy, the RTC, property was owners could not
the court cannot praying for the issued. It was also be deprived
grant judicial annulment of premature for of their property
sanction to an the Resolution the petitioners under the power
LGU's exercise of due to its being to mount any of eminent
its delegated unconstitution judicial domain. (Spouses
power of eminent al, confiscatory, challenge, for Antonio and Fe v.
domain in and without thepower of CA, G.R. No.
contravention of force and eminent domain 156684,April6,201
the very law effect. The City could be 1)
giving it such countered that exercised by the
power. [Beluso v. the Resolution City only Q: Petitioner
Municipality of was a mere through the Himlayang
Panay (Capiz), G.R. authorization. filing of a Pilipino filed a
No. 153974, Aug. Hence, the suit petition to annul
7, 2006] of the spouses an ordinance
was premature. which provides
Q: Spouses Yusay Will the that at least 6%
owned a parcel petition for of the total area
of land, half of certiorari and of every private
which they used prohibition cemetery shall
as their prosper? be set aside for
residence, and charity burial
the rest they A: NO.Certiorari grounds of
rented out to did not lie deceased
nine other against the paupers.
families. Sangguniang Petitioner
Allegedly, the Panglungsod, alleged that the
land was their which was not a ordinance is an
only property part of the invalid exercise
and only source Judiciary settling of the power of
of income. The an actual eminent domain
Sangguniang controversy as they were not
Panglungsod of involving legally paid just
Mandaluyong demandable and compensation.
City adopted a enforceable However, the
resolution rights when it City government
authorizing the adopted of Quezon City
City Mayor to Resolution No. argued that the
take the 552, but a ordinance is an
necessary legal legislative and exercise of
steps for the policy-making police power,
expropriation of body declaring hence, just
the land of the its sentiment or compensaition is
POLITICAL LAW
not necessary. Is cemetery for this was charged and to enact, and is therefore
the ordinance purpose, the city convicted of null and void. (People v.
valid? passes the burden violating the Fajardo, G.R No. L-12172,
to private Ordinance for Aug. 29, 1958)
A: NO. The power to cemeteries. Police having constructed
regulate does not power does not a building that Q:The Philippine Tourism
include the power to involve the taking destroys the view Authority sought the
prohibit. A fortiori, or confiscation of of the public plaza expropriation of 282
the power to regulate property with the without a mayor’s hectares of rolling land
does not include the exception of few permit. Is the situated in Barangay
power to confiscate. cases where there ordinance valid? Alubog and Babag, Cebu
The ordinance in is a necessity to City, under an express
question not only confiscate private A: NO. The authority to acquire by
confiscates but also property in order to ordinance is purchase or by any other
prohibits the destroy it for the unreasonable and means any private land
operation of a purpose of oppressive, in that it within the tourism zone.
memorial park protecting the operates to Petitioner contended that
cemetery. There is no peace and order permanently deprive the taking was not for
reasonable relation and of promoting appellants of the public use and that there
between the setting the general welfare. right to use their is no specific
aside of at least 6% (Quezon City v. own property; constitutional provision
of the total area of a Ericta, G.R. No. L- hence, it oversteps authorizing the taking of
private cemeteries 34915, June 24, the bounds of police private property for
for charity burial 1983) power, and amounts tourism purposes. Is the
grounds of deceased to a taking of contention valid?
paupers and the Q: The municipal appellants’ property
promotion of health, council of Baao, without just A: NO. Expropriation by the
morals, good order, Camarines Sur, compensation. But PTA under P.D. 564 of land
safety, or the general passed an while property may owned by the local
welfare of the people. ordinance be regulated in the government for promotion
providing that any interest of the of tourism is a valid
Section 9 of the person who will general welfare and, exercise of the State’s
assailed Ordinance is construct or in its pursuit, the power of eminent domain.
not a mere police repair a building State may prohibit The concept of public use is
regulation but an should, before structures offensive not limited to traditional
outright confiscation. doing such, obtain to sight, the State purposes. Here, as
It is not an exercise of a written permit may not, under the elsewhere, the idea that
police power but from the guise of police “public use” is strictly
eminent domain. It Municipal Mayor power, permanently limited to clear cases of
deprives a person of and if said divest owners of the “use by the public” has been
his private property building destroys beneficial use of discarded. The State’s
without due process the view of the their property and power of eminent domain
of law and without Public Plaza or practically confiscate extends to the expropriation
payment of just occupies any them solely to of land for
compensation. public property, it preserve or assure
Instead of building or shall be the aesthetic
maintaining a public appearance of the
community. To
removed at the station. The request was legally achieve that
expense of the denied because the result, the
owner of the proposed building would municipality must
building or house. X destroy the view or beauty give the owners just
filed a written of the public plaza. X compensation and
request for a permit proceeded with the an opportunity to be
to construct a construction of the building heard. The
building on a parcel without a permit because Ordinance was
of land adjacent to his former house was beyond the authority
their gasoline destroyed by a typhoon. X of said municipality
LocAl GoveRNMents
tourism Hipolito are privat tive authority
purpose the registered e to establish a
s owners of a lando building line,
althoug parcel of land wners the denial of
h this in Santa Ana, constit this permit
specific Manila. They utes would
objectiv applied for taking amount to
e is not permission to when taking of
express erect a strong- there private
ed in material is no property for
the residential law or public use
Constitu building on ordina under the
tion. the lot. For nce power of
The more than 40 requir eminent
policy days, the city ing domain
objectiv engineer took privat without
es of the no action. e land following the
framers Wherefore, owner procedure
can be Hipolito wrote s to prescribed
express him a letter confor for the
ed only manifesting m to exercise of
in his readiness the such power.
general to pay the fee propo The city
terms and to comply sed engineer
such as with existing wideni required to
social ordinances ng of issue the
justice, governing the the building
local issuance of street permit upon
autono building appro payment of
my, permits. The ved by the fees.
conserv engineer the (Hipolito v.
ation declined to Urban City of
and issue the Comm Manila, G.R
develop permit as ission. No. L-3887,
ment of according to Where Aug. 21,
the the Urban the 1950)
national Commission’s City
patrimo Adopted Plan has NOTE:
ny for the Sta. not Private
public Ana, the expro property
interest, streets will be priate already
and widened to d the devoted to
general the respective strip public use
welfare, widths of 22- of land can still be a
among m. and 10 m affecte subject of
others. and will affect d by expropriation
(Heirs the proposed the by Congress
of building. Was propo but not by
Ardona the engineer sed LGUs.
v. Reyes, correct in not wideni
G.R. No. issuing the ng of TAXING
G.R No. permit? the POWERS
L- street,
60549, A: NO. The inasm Nature of the power of
Oct. 26, refusal of the uch as taxation of LGUs
1983) city engineer to there
issue a building is no It is already
Q: Sps. permit to legisla well-settled
POLITICAL LAW
that the power must and 43,
althoug be delegated by A: NO. A basic Chapter XI of
h the Congress and feature of local the city
power must be fiscal autonomy ordinance
to tax is exercised is the automatic requires
inheren within the release of the proprietors,
t in the guidelines and shares of LGUs lessees or
State, limitations that in the national operators of
the Congress may internal theatres,
same is provide. (Geron revenue. This is cinemas,
not true v. Pilipinas mandated by no concert halls,
for the Shell, G.R. No. less than the circuses,
LGUs to 18763, July 8, Constitution. boxing stadia,
whom 2015) The LGC and other
Otherwise, mere specifies further places of
creatures of the that the release amusement,
ARMM’s taxing State can defeat shall be made to pay an
power National policies directly to the amusement
thru LGU concerned tax equivalent
The ARMM has extermination of within five days to 30% of the
the legislative what local after every gross receipts
power to create authorities may quarter of the of admission
sources of perceive to be year and “shall fees.
revenues within undesirable not be subject to Meanwhile,
its territorial activities or any lien or R.A. 9167 was
jurisdiction and enterprise using holdback that enacted on
subject to the the power to tax may be imposed June 7, 2002
provisions of the as "a tool for by the national creating the
1987 Constitution regulation”. government for Film
and national laws. (Basco v. whatever Development
[1987 Philippine purpose.” As a Council of
Constitution,Art. X, Amusements and rule, the term
Sec. 20(2)] Gaming "shall" is a word
Corporation, G.R. of command
Q: Can the local No. 91649, May that must be
governments tax 14, 1991) given a
national compulsory
government Q: The meaning. The
instrumentalitie President, provision is,
s? through A.O. therefore,
372, ordered imperative.
A: Sec. 133 of the the (Pimentel Jr. v.
LGC states that withholding of Aguirre, G.R. No.
“unless otherwise 10% of the 132988, July 19,
provided in the LGUs' IRA 2000)
Code, local "pending the
governments assessment Q: In 1993,
cannot tax and evaluation Cebu City
national by the imposed
government Development amusement
instrumentalities. Budget taxes under
This doctrine Coordinating Sec. 140 of the
emanates from Committee of LGC and passed
the “supremacy” the emerging “Revised
of National fiscal situation" Omnibus Tax
government over in the country. Ordinance of
local Is the A.O. the City of
governments. valid? Cebu.” Secs. 42
LocAl GoveRNMents
the Philippines raised and nothing from the covered LGUs, but
(FDCP). Secs 13 and collected by Cebu owners, proprietors to earmark, if not
14 of R.A. 9167 City and its and lessees of altogether
provided for the tax subsequent cinemas operating confiscate, the
treatment of certain transfer to FDCP. within the territory income to be
graded films — film This, it said, is a of the covered LGU. received by the
producers were to confiscatory LGU from the
be entitled to an measure where Taking the resulting taxpayers in favor
incentive equivalent the national scheme into of and for
to the amusement government consideration, it is transmittal to
tax imposed and extracts money apparent that what FDCP, instead of
collected by the from the local Congress did in this the taxing
cities, subject to government’s instance was not to authority. This is
various rates coffers and exclude the in clear
depending on the transfers it to the authority to levy contravention of
grade of their film, FDCP, a private amusement taxes the constitutional
to be remitted to the agency, which in from the taxing command that
FDCP. FDCP had sent turn, will award power of the
demand letters for the money to
unpaid amusement private persons, taxes levied by LGUs no circumstance accrue to
tax reward with five film producers, for shall accrue them, not even partially,
percent surcharge having produced exclusively to said despite being the taxing
for each month of graded films. Is the LGU and is authority therefor. Congress,
delinquency due to RTC correct? repugnant to the therefore, clearly
the producers. The power of LGUs to overstepped its plenary
proprietors and A: YES. Under R.A. apportion their legislative power, the
cinema operators 9167, covered LGUs resources in line amendment being violative
refused to remit the still have the power with their priorities. of the fundamental law's
amounts while Cebu to levy amusement guarantee on local
City insisted on its taxes, albeit at the It is a basic precept autonomy. (Film
claim on the end of the day, that the inherent Development Council of the
amounts in they will derive no legislative powers of Philippines v. Colon Heritage
question. Then, revenue Congress, broad as Realty Corporation, G.R. No.
Cebu City filed a therefrom. The they may be, are 203754, June 16, 2015)
petition for same, however, limited and confined
declaratory relief cannot be said for within the four walls Main sources of revenues
before RTC, Branch FDCP and the of the Constitution. of LGUs
14, asking it to producers of graded Accordingly,
declare Secs. 13 and films since the whenever the 1. Taxes, fees, and
14 of R.A. 9167 amounts thus levied legislature exercises charges. (1987
invalid and by the LGUs which its power to enact, Constitution Art. X,
unconstitutional. should rightfully amend, and repeal Sec. 5)
Colon Heritage accrue to them, they laws, it should do so
Corporation filed a being the taxing without going 2. Internal Revenue
similar petition authority-will be beyond the Allotment (IRA) - Just
before the RTC going to their parameters wrought share in the national
Branch 5, seeking to coffers. As a matter by the organic law. taxes which shall be
declare Sec. 14 of fact, it is only automatically released
unconstitutional. through the In the case at bar, to them. (1987
The RTC declared exercise by the LGU through the Constitution Art. X,Sec.
Secs. 13 and 14 of of said power that application and 6)
R.A. 9167 the funds to be used enforcement of Sec.
unconstitutional. for the amusement 14 of R.A. 9167, the NOTE: The current
The RTC said what tax reward can be income from the sharing is 40% local
R.A. 9167 seeks to raised. Without said amusement taxes and 60% national. The
accomplish is the imposition, the levied by the share cannot be
segregation of producers of graded covered LGUs did reduced except if there
amusement taxes films will receive not and will under is unmanageable public
POLITICAL LAW
sector deficit. the ment of
the Proceeds of just the
Q: Mandanas, et al, National share national
allege that the Taxes), of the of the wealth
insertion by LGC which says, LGUs within
Congress of the “Section 284. contra their
words internal Allotment of vened areas.
revenue in the Internal the (1987
phrase national Revenue Taxes. expres Constitut
taxes found in - Local s ion Art.
Section 284 of the government constit X,Sec. 7)
LGC caused the units shall have utional
diminution of the a share in the edict Principles
base for determining national in governing
the just share of the internal Sectio exercise of
LGUs, and should be revenue taxes x n 6, taxing and
declared x x” Article revenue-
unconstitutional as X the sharing
it contravened The phrase 1987 powers of
Section 6, Article X of national Constit LGUs
the 1987 internal ution.
Constitution. Is revenue taxes (Mand 1. Taxation shall be
limiting the LGU’s engrafted in anas v. uniform in each LGU
IRA to national Section 284 is Ochoa, 2. Taxes,
internal revenue undoubtedly G.R. fees,
taxes contrary to the more No. charges
Constitution? restrictive than 19980 and
the term 2, July other
A: YES. Section 6, national taxes 3, impositio
Article X the 1987 written in 2018) ns shall
Constitution textually Section 6. As be
commands the such, Congress 3. Eq equitable
allocation to the LGUs has actually uit and
of a just share in the departed from ab based as
national taxes. the letter of the le far as
Carrying out the 1987 sh practicab
provision’s mandate, Constitution ar le on the
Congress enacted stating that e taxpayer’
Section 284, Title III national taxes in s ability
(Shares of Local should be the th to pay; it
Government Units in base from e shall be
which the just pr levied
share of the oc and
LGU comes. ee collected
Such departure only for
ds
is public
of
impermissible. purpose;
th
it must
e
It is clear from not be
uti
the foregoing unjust,
liz
clarification excessive
ati ,
that the on oppressi
exclusion of an ve, or
other national d confiscat
taxes like de ory; it
customs duties ve must not
from the base lo be
for determining p contrary
LocAl GoveRNMents
to 4. The by law or accountab
law, revenue ordinance, le and
pub collected and responsib
lic shall inure collection le for
poli solely to thereof said
cy, the benefit shall at all funds
nati of, and be times be and for
onal subject to acknowledg the
eco dispositio ed safekeepi
no n by, the properly; ng thereof
mic local 4. All monies in
poli governme officially conformit
cy, nt unit, received by y with the
or unless a local provisions
rest specificall governmen of law;
rain y provided t officer in 7. Local
t of therein. any governme
trad 5. Each local capacity or nts shall
e; governmen formulate
on any
3. The t unit shall, occasion sound
coll as far as
shall be financial
ecti practicable
accounted plans and
on , evolve a
for as local local
of progressiv
funds, budgets
loca e system of
unless shall be
l taxation.
otherwise based on
tax (LGC, Sec.
provided; functions,
es, 130)
5. Trust funds activities,
fees
, Principles in the local and
cha treasury projects in
governing
rge financial shall not be terms of
s paid out expected
affairs,
and transactions except in results;
oth the 8. Local
and
er operations of fulfillment budget
imp of the plans and
LGUs
osit purpose for goals shall,
ion which the as far as
1. No money
s trust was practicabl
shall be
shal created or e, be
paid out of
l in the funds harmonize
the local
no received; d with
treasury
cas 6. Every national
except in
e officer of developm
pursuance
be the LGU ent plans,
of an
let whose goals and
appropriati
to duties strategies
on
any permit or in order
ordinance
priv require the to optim
or law;
ate possession the
2. Local government funds
per or custody utilization
and monies shall be
son. of local of
funds shall resources
spent solely generated be properly and to
for public only from bonded, avoid
purposes; sources and such duplicatio
3. Local expressly officer shall n in the
revenue is authorized be use of
POLITICAL LAW
fiscal and exercising the purpose.
physical authority (Figuerres v.
resources. over the 1. The tax is for a CA, G.R. No.
9. Local budgets financial public purpose; 119172,
shall affairs, 2. The rule on March 25,
operationaliz transactions uniformity of 1999)
e approved and taxation is
local operations observed; 2. Publication of
development of LGUs; and 3. Either the the tax
plans; 13. The LGU person or ordinance,
10. LGUs shall shall property taxed within 10
ensure that endeavor to is within the days after
their have a jurisdiction of their
respective balanced the approval, for
budgets budget in government 3 consecutive
incorporate each fiscal levying the tax; days in a
the year of and newspaper of
requirements operation. 4. In the local
of their (LGC, Sec. assessment and circulation,
component 305) collection of provided that
units and certain kinds of in provinces,
provide for NOTE: The taxes, notice cities, and
equitable general and municipalitie
allocation of principles on opportunity for s where there
resources taxation also hearing are are no
among these apply to the provided. newspapers
component taxing powers of (Pepsi-Cola of local
units; LGUs. Bottling Co. circulation,
11. National v. Municipality the same may
planning Requirements of Tanauan, be posted in
shall be for a valid tax G.R. No. L- at least two
based on ordinance 31156, (2)
local (PUJ- NO) February 27, conspicuous
planning to 1976) and publicly
ensure that accessible
the needs Procedural places.
and requirements for
aspirations of a valid revenue NOTE: If the
the people as ordinance tax ordinance
articulated or revenue
by the LGUs 1. A prior public measure
in their hearing on the contains
respective measure to be penal
local conducted provisions as
development according to authorized in
plans are the prescribed Art. 280of
considered in rules. this Rule, the
the gist of such
formulation NOTE: An tax ordinance
of budgets of ordinance or revenue
national line levying taxes, measure shall
agencies or fees or charges be published
offices; shall not be in a
12. Fiscal enacted newspaper of
responsibility without any general
shall be prior public circulation
shared by all hearing within the
those conducted for province
LocAl GoveRNMents
where the ensuing quarter
sanggunian and the taxes, fees, Tax Protest
concerned or charges due 1. Taxpayer first pays the
belongs. (IRR of shall begin to The formal taxes
LGC, Art. 276) accrue therefrom. statement, usually in 2. There
(IRR of LGC, Art. writing, made by a shall be
Effectivity of tax 276) person who is called annotati
ordinance upon by public on on the
Q: The Province of authority to pay a tax
In case the effectivity Palawan passes sum of money, in receipts
of any tax ordinance an ordinance which he declares the
or revenue measure requiring all that he does not words
falls on any date owners/operators concede the legality "paid
other than the of fishing vessels or justice of the claim under
beginning of the that fish in waters or his duty to pay it, protest".
quarter, the same surrounding the or that he disputes 3. The
shall be considered province to invest the amount protest
as falling at the ten percent (10%) demanded; the object in
beginning of the next of being to save his writing
right to recover or must be
their net profits reclaim the amount, filed
from operations Authority to determine which right would be within
therein in any the legality or propriety of lost by his thirty
enterprise located in a local tax ordinance or acquiescence. Thus, (30)
Palawan. NARCO revenue measure taxes may be paid days
Fishing Corp., a under "protest". from
Filipino corporation It is the Secretary of Justice (Black’s Law payment
with head office in who shall determine Dictionary) of the tax
Navotas, Metro questions on the legality and to the
Manila, challenges constitutionality of Requisites of a provincia
the ordinance as ordinances or revenue valid tax protest in l, city
unconstitutional. measures. a LGU (PAP) treasurer
Decide. (1991 Bar) or
Such questions shall be raised municipa
A: The ordinance is on appeal within thirty days l
invalid. The ordinance from the effectivity thereof to treasurer
was apparently the Secretary of Justice who , in the
enacted pursuant to shall render a decision within case of a
Art. X, Sec. 7 of the sixty days from the date of municipa
Constitution, which receipt of the appeal. lity
entitles local within
governments to an NOTE: Such appeal shall not Metropol
equitable share in the have the effect of itan
proceeds of the suspending the effectivity of Manila
utilization and the ordinance and the Area,
development of the accrual and payment of the who
national wealth within tax, fee, or charge levied shall
their respective areas. therein: Provided, finally, that decide
However, this should within thirty days after the
be made pursuant to receipt of the decision or the protest
law. A law is needed lapse of the sixty-day period within
to implement this without the Secretary of sixty
provision and a local Justice acting upon the (60)
government cannot appeal, the aggrieved party days
constitute itself unto a may file appropriate from
law. In the absence of proceedings with a court of receipt.
a law, the ordinance in competent jurisdiction (RTC). (LGC,
question is invalid. (LGC, Sec. 187) Sec. 252)
POLITICAL LAW
Remedies in
NOTE: A available to the th These are
claim LGUs to e directly
for tax enforce the P imposed on
exempti payment of hi privilege to
on, taxes li use real
whether p property such
full or 1. Imposing pi as land,
partial, penalties ne building,
does not (surcharge s machinery,
deal s and d and other
with the penalty oe improvement
authorit interest) in s s, unless
y of case of n specifically
local delinquenc ot exempted.
assessor y (LGC, Sec. ex
to 168) ce Q: After the
assess 2. Availing ed effectivity of
real local 3 LGC,
propert governmen m Bayantel
y tax, t’s liens o was granted
but (LGC, Sec. nt by Congress
merely 173) hs a legislative
raises a 3. Administra (L franchise
question tive action G with tax
of through C, exemption
reasona distraint of Se privileges
bleness goods, c. which partly
of chattels, 1 reads: “the
correctn and other 5 grantee, its
ess of personal 9) successors
such property or assigns
assessm [LGC, Sec. Real property taxes
ent, 174(a)]
which 4. Judicial action [LGC, Sec. shall be liable Quezon City
requires 174(b)] to pay the then
complia same taxes on enacted an
nce with Community tax their real ordinance
Sec. 252 estate, imposing a
of the Community tax buildings and real
LGC. is a poll or personal property tax
(Camp capitation tax property, on all real
John which is exclusive of properties
Hay imposed upon this franchise, located
Develop person who as other within the
ment resides within persons or city limits
Corpora a specified corporations and
tion v. territory. are now or withdrawing
Central hereafter may all
Board of Exempted from the be required by exemptions
Assessm payment of community tax law to pay.” previously
ent This provision granted.
Appeals, 1. Diplomatic and consular existed in the Among
G.R. No. representatives; company’s properties
169234, 2. Transient franchise covered are
October visitors prior to the those owned
2, 2013) when effectivity of by the
their stay the LGC. company.
LocAl GoveRNMents
Bayantel asserts Government of nt
that its Quezon City, et (Pimentel, ordinance in
properties are al., v. Bayan Jr. v. conflict with a
exempt from tax Telecommunica Aguirre, state law of
under its tions, Inc., G.R. G.R. No. general character
franchise. Is No. 162015, 132988, and statewide
Bayantel March 6, 2006) July 19, application is
correct? 2000). universally held
Elements so to be invalid. In
A:YES. The that the every power to
properties are President may pass ordinances
exempt from interfere in LEGISLATIVE given to a
taxation. The local fiscal POWER municipality,
grant of taxing matters there is an
powers to local Nature of local implied
governments 1. An legislative restriction that
under the unmanage powers the ordinances
Constitution and d public shall be
the LGC does not sector It is a consistent with
affect the power of deficit of fundamental the general law.
Congress to grant the principle that (Batangas CATV
tax exemptions. national municipal v. Court of
governme ordinances are Appeals, G.R. No.
The term nt; inferior in 138810,
"exclusive of the 2. Consultati status and September 29,
franchise" is ons with subordinate to 2004)
interpreted to the the laws of the
mean properties presiding State. An NOTE: The rule
actually, directly officers of against undue
and exclusively the Senate delegation of
used in the radio and the legislative
and House of powers applies to
telecommunicatio Representa LGUs. In the case
ns business. The tives and of Villegas v. Tsai
subsequent piece the Pao Ho (G.R. No.
of legislation presidents 29646, October
which reiterated of the 10, 1978), a city
the phrase various ordinance was
“exclusive of this local declared void
franchise” found leagues; because it
in the previous tax 3. And the constituted
exemption grant correspon undue delegation
to the company is ding of legislative
an express and recommen power to the
real intention on dation of Mayor. The
the part of the the ordinance did not
Congress to once secretaries lay down any
again remove of the standard to guide
from the LGC’s Departmen the Mayor in the
delegated taxing t of exercise of his
power, all of the Finance, discretion in the
company’s Interior issuance or
properties that are and Local denial of an alien
actually, directly Governme employment
and exclusively nt, and permit.
used in the pursuit Budget
of its franchise. and The Sanggunian
(The City Manageme
POLITICAL LAW
A sanggunian is a contempt (1993 Sangguniang of the latter office, since
collegial body. Bar) barangay - the nature of the duties of
Legislation, which is Punong the provincial Governor
the principal function The contempt Barangay call for a full-time
of the sanggunian, power and the occupant to discharge
requires the subpoena power NOTE: The presiding them. Such is not only
participation of all its cannot be deemed officer shall vote only consistent with but also
members so that they implied in the to break a tie [Sec. appears to be the clear
may not only delegation of 49(a) LGC]. rationale of the new Code
represent the certain legislative wherein the policy of
interests of their functions to local In the absence of the performing dual functions
respective legislative bodies. regular presiding in both offices has already
constituents but also These cannot be officer or his inability been abandoned.
help in the making of presumed to exist to preside at the
decisions, by voting in favor of the sanggunian session, The creation of a
upon every question latter and must be the members present temporary vacancy in the
put upon the body. considered an and constituting a office of the Governor
(Zamora v. Caballero, exception to Sec. 4 quorum shall elect creates a corresponding
G.R. No. 147767, of B.P. Blg. 337 from among temporary vacancy in the
January 14, 2004) which provides for themselves a office of the Vice-
liberal rules of temporary presiding Governor whenever the
NOTE: A petition for interpretation in officer. [LGC, Sec. latter acts as Governor by
certiorari filed favor of local 49(b); Gamboa v. virtue of such temporary
against a autonomy. Since Aguirre, G.R. No. vacancy. The continuity of
Sangguniang the existence of 134213, July 20, 1999] the Acting Governor’s
Panlungsod assailing these powers (Vice-Governor) powers
the legality of an poses a potential Q: May an as presiding officer of the
ordinance will not lie derogation of incumbent Vice- SP is suspended so long as
since the Sanggunian individual rights, Governor, acting as he is in such capacity.
is not a tribunal, the law cannot be governor, continue
board or officer liberally construed to preside over the
exercising judicial or to have impliedly sessions of the
quasi-judicial granted such Sangguniang
functions. (Liga ng powers to local Panlalawigan (SP)?
mga Barangay legislative bodies. If not, who may
National v. City The intention of preside in the
Mayor of Manila, G.R. the people, meantime?
No. 154599, January through their
21, 2004) representatives, to A:NO. A Vice-
share these Governor who is
No power to powers with the concurrently an
subpoena and hold local legislative acting governor is
persons in actually a quasi-
governor. For
bodies must clearly purposes of
appear in pertinent Province - exercising his
legislation. (Negros Sangguniang legislative
Oriental II Electric Panlalawigan - Vice- prerogatives and
Cooperative Inc., v. governor powers, he is
Sangguiang deemed a non-
Panlungsod ng City - Sangguniang member of the SP
Dumaguete, G.R. No. Panlungsod- City Vice - mayor for the time being.
L-72492, November 5, Being the Acting
1987) Municipality - Governor, the Vice-
Sangguniang bayan - Governor cannot
Local legislative Municipal Vice-mayor continue to
bodies and their simultaneously
presiding officers Barangay - exercise the duties
LocAl GoveRNMents
Under transact its majority ship of the
Sec. proper business of all sanggunian
49(b), “in or that number the being 11, 11
the event which makes a member divided by 2
of the lawful body and s of the will give us a
inability gives it power to sanggun quotient of
of the pass upon a law, ian who 5.5. Let it be
regular ordinance or any have noted
presiding valid act. been however that
officer to ‘Majority’, when elected a fraction
preside at required to and cannot be
the constitute a qualifie considered as
sangguni quorum, means d shall one whole
an the number constitu vote, since it
session, greater than half te a is physically
the or more than quorum and legally
members half of any total. to impossible to
present transact divide a
and Q: What is the official person or
constituti number that busines even his vote
ng a would s. into a
quorum determine the "Majorit fractional
shall elect quorum of our y" has part.
from sanggunian been Accordingly,
among that has a total defined we have to go
themselv membership of in up to the next
es a eleven (11) Santiag whole
temporar including the o vs. number,
y vice- mayor? Guingon which is 6.
presiding a, et al.
officer”. A: The Sangguniang Bayan is (G.R. In this regard,
(Gamboa composed of eight No. 6 is more than
v. (8) regular 134577, 5.5 and
Aguirre, members, the 18 therefore,
G.R. No. Liga ng mga Novemb more than
134213, Barangay er one-half of
July 20, President and 1998) the total
1999) the SK as that membership
Federation which is of the
Quorum in the President as ex- greater sangguniang
sanggunian officio members, than bayan in
and the Vice- half of conformity
Quorum is Mayor as the with the
defined as Presiding member jurisprudenti
the Officer. The ship of al definition
number of total the of the term
members membership in body. majority.
of a body a sanggunian Thus, the
which bayan, Followi presence of 6
when therefore, is ng the members
legally eleven (11). said shall already
assembled ruling, constitute a
in their Relative since quorum in the
proper thereto, Section the total sangguniang
places, 53 of the Local member bayan for
will Government
enable the Code of 1991 it to conduct (DILG
body to provides that a official sessions. Opinion No.
POLITICAL LAW
46-2007 and La shall be
Carlota City et al, transacted Guidelines in
v. Atty. Rex Rojo, if there is the conduct of 4. In case of special
G.R. No. 181367, still no a sanggunian sessions:
April 24, 2012) quorum session a. Written
despite notice to
Procedures to be enforceme 1. It shall be the
taken by the nt of open to members
presiding officer attendance public, must be
if there is a [LGC, Sec. unless it is a served
question on 53 (b)(c)] closed-door personally
quorum session at least 24
Fixing of 2. No two hoursbefor
Should there be a Sessions sessions, e the
question of regular or special
quorum raised Regular special, may session is
during a session, Sessions - By be held in a held
the presiding resolution on single day b. Unless
officer shall: the 1st day of 3. Minutes of otherwise
the session the session concurred
1. Immediately immediately be recorded in by 2/3
proceed to call following the and each votes of
the roll of the election of its sanggunian the
members and members shall keep a sanggunia
2. Announce the journal and n
results [LGC, Special record of its members
Sec. 53 (a)] Sessions - proceedings present,
When public which may there
Procedures to be interest so be being no
taken by the demands, published quorum, no
presiding officer special session upon other
if there is no may be called resolution of matters
quorum for by the chief the may be
executive or by sanggunian considered
The presiding a majority vote concerned. at aspecial
officer may: members of session
sanggunian. except
1. Declare a those
recess until NOTE: The stated
such time minimum inthe
that quorum number of notice
is regular (LGC, Sec.
constituted sessions shall 52).
2. Compel be once a week
immediate for the Q: On its first
attendance of sangguniang regular session,
the members panlalawigan, may the
who are sangguniang sanggunian
absent panlungsod, transact
without and business other
justifiable sangguniang than the matter
cause bayan, and of adopting or
3. Declare the twice a month updating its
session for the existing rules or
adjourned for sangguniang procedure?
lack of barangay.
quorum and [LGC, Sec. 52 A:YES. There is
no business (a)] nothing in the
LocAl GoveRNMents
language of the LGC discriminatory municipal charter prejudicial to public
that restricts the 4. Must not prohibit, requires the welfare. The veto must be
matters to be taken up but may regulate municipality to act communicated to the
during the first trade by an ordinance, if a sanggunian within:
regular session merely 5. Must not be resolution is passed
to the adoption or unreasonable in the manner and a. 15 days for a
updating of the house 6. Must be with the statutory province
rules. (Malonzo v. general in formality required in b. 10 days for a city
Zamora, G.R. No. application and the enactment of an or municipality
137718, July 27, 1999) Consistent with ordinance, it will be (LGC, Secs. 54 and
public policy. binding and effective 55)
REQUISITES FOR (Magtajas v. as an ordinance.
VALID ORDINANCE Pryce Properties Such resolution may NOTE: While “to veto or
Corporation, operate regardless not to veto involves the
Ordinance [not- Inc., July 20, of the name by exercise of discretion,” a
CUPPUn-Gen] 1994) which it is called. mayor exceeded his/her
(Favis authority in an arbitrary
As a municipal statute, NOTE: The mere v. City of Baguio, G.R. manner when he/she
it is a rule of conduct or fact that there is No. L-29910, April vetoes a resolution where
of action, laid down by already a general 25, 1969) there exist sufficient
the municipal statute covering an
authorities that must act or omission is Three readings
be obeyed by the insufficient to allowed in one day
citizens. It is drafted, negate the
prepared, promulgated legislative intent to There is nothing in
by such authorities for empower the the LGC which
the information of all municipality to prohibits the three
concerned, under and enact ordinances readings of a
by virtue of powers with reference to proposed ordinance
conferred upon them the same act or from being held in
by law (United States v. omission under the just one session day.
Pablo Trinidad, G.R. No. ‘general welfare It is not the function
L-3023, January 16, clause’ of the of the courts to
1907). Municipal Charter speculate that the
(United States v. councilors were not
1. Must not Pascual Pacis, G.R. given ample time for
contravene the No. 10363, reflection and
constitution and September 29, circumspection
any statute 1915). before the passage of
2. Must not be unfair or the proposed
oppressive Ordinance vs. ordinance by
3. Must not be partial or Resolution conducting three
a lawmaking body on readings in just one
a specific matter day. (Malonzo v.
Ordinance - Temporary in nature Zamora, G.R. No.
- Law 137718, July 27,
- General and GR: Third reading is not 1999)
permanent necessary in resolution
character Veto of the Local
- Third reading is XPN: Unless decided Chief Executive
necessary for an otherwise by a majority of all (1996, 2005 Bar)
ordinance the Sanggunian members.
(Roble Arrastre, Inc. v. The Local Chief
Resolution Villaflor, G.R. No. 128509, Executive may veto
- Merely a August 22, 2006) the ordinance only
declaration of once on the ground
the sentiment NOTE: It has been held that that the ordinance is
or opinion of even where the statute or ultra vires and
POLITICAL LAW
municip adopting lo ing a zoning
al funds local ca ordinance
from developme l (Casino v.
which nt plan and ch Court of
the public ief Appeals, G.R.
salary of investment ex No. 91192,
the program ec Dec. 2, 1991).
officer 3. Ordinance ut
could be directing iv Effectivity of ordinance
paid. the e or resolution
The payment of ve
Mayor’s money or to GR: After 10
refusal creating ed days from the
in liability th date a copy is
complyi (LGC, Sec. e posted in a
ng with 55) sa bulletin board
the m at the
directiv NOTE: e( entrance of
e of the Ordinances L the capitol or
G city, municipal
Director enacted by the
C,
of the sangguniang or barangay
Se
Bureau barangayshall, hall and in at
c.
of Local upon approval least 2
5
Govern by a majority conspicuous
4)
ment of all its spaces [LGC,
that the members be Sec. 59 (a)].
NOTE:
salary signed by the
A
could be punong XPN: Unless
sangg
provide barangay. The otherwise
unian
d for is latter has no stated in
may
oppressi veto power. the
provid
ve. ordinance or
e for a
(Pilar v. Approval of ordinances resolution
vote
Sanggu [LGC, Sec. 59
requir
niang 1. By affixing (a)].
ement
Bayan the
differe
of Dasol, signature Effect of the
nt (not
Pangasi of the local enforcemen
majori
nan, G.R. chief t of a
executive ty
No. L- disapproved
on each vote)
63216, ordinance
and every from
March or
page that
12, resolution
thereof if prescri
1984)
he bed in
It shall be a
approves the
Items that the local sufficient
the same LGC
chief executive can ground for
2. By for
veto the
overriding certain suspension
the veto of (but or dismissal
1. Item/s of an
the local not of the official
appropriation
chief all) or employee
ordinance.
executive ordina (LGC, Sec. 58).
2. Ordi
by 2/3 nces
nan
vote of all as in Ordinances requiring
ce/r
members amend publication for its
esol
of the
utio
sanggunia effectivity
n
n if the
LocAl GoveRNMents
1. Ordinances
that carry
with them
penal
sanctions[LG
C, Sec. 59 (c)]
2. Ordinances
and
resolutions
passed by
highly
urbanized
and
independent
component
cities [LGC,
Sec. 59 (d)]
Review of
ordinances or
resolutions
(2009 Bar)
Component
Basis
Ordinances or
Resolutions
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
As to Who
Reviews
As to Within 3 days
When after approval
copies of
ordinance
or
resolutions
be
forwarded
Within 30 days
after the receipt;
1. Examine,
2. Transmit
provincial
attorney
provincial
As to prosecutor.
Period to If it is
examine the
attorney
prosecutor
submit
comments
recommendations
within
POLITICAL LAW
LocAl GoveRNMents
POLITICAL LAW
LocAl GoveRNMents
POLITICAL LAW
from 2. It shall extend
the document. panlungsod only to
If no action has sangguniang subjects or
As to When been taken within pangbayan matters which
declared 30 Sec. 56) are within the
valid submission. legal powers
of the
As to When If it is beyond the sanggunian to
declared power enact.
invalid on 3. If at any time
(grounds) sangguniang before the
initiative is
held, the
sanggunian
concerned
LOCAL adopts in toto
INITIATIVE AND the
REFERENDUM proposition
presented and
Initiative- The the local chief
legal process executive
whereby the approves the
registered voters of same, the
LGU may directly initiative shall
propose, enact or be canceled.
amend any However,
ordinance (LGC, those against
Sec. 120) such action
may, if they so
Referendum- The desire, apply
legal process for initiative in
whereby the the manner
registered voters of herein
the LGU may provided.
approve, amend or (LGC, Sec. 124)
reject any
ordinance enacted Procedure in
by the conducting local
sanggunian(R.A. initiative
7160, Sec. 126)
1. Number of
NOTE: Local voters who
initiative includes should file
not only ordinances petition with
but also resolutions the
as its appropriate Sanggunian
subjects(Garcia v. concerned:
COMELEC, G.R. a. Province
111230, September. and
30, 1994). cities –
not less
Limitations on local than
initiative 1000
registere
1. It shall not be d voters
exercised for b. Muni
more than cipali
once a year. ty – at
LocAl GoveRNMents
least 100 voters Ultra vires contracts
registere
d voters 2. The sanggunian Ultra vires contracts are
c. Barangay – at concerned has 30 those which:
least 50 days to act
registered a. Are
entered
on the petition. If 15 days after certification by into
the sanggunian the COMELEC (LGC, Sec. beyond
does not take any 123). the
favorable action, express,
the proponents Rule of COMELEC over local implied
may invoke the referendum or
powers of inherent
initiative, giving The local referendum shall powers of
notice to be held under the control the LGU;
sanggunian. and direction of the and
3. Proponents will COMELEC within b. Do not
have the comply
following a. Provinces and cities – with the
number of days 60 days substanti
to collect b. Municipalities – 45 ve
required number days requirem
of signatures c. Barangay – 30 days ents of
a. Provinces and law e.g.,
cities – 90 days The COMELEC shall certify when
b. Municipalities and proclaim the results of expenditu
– 60 days the said referendum (LGC, re of
c. Barangay – 30 Sec. 126) public
days funds is
Rule on repeal, modification to be
4. Signing of petition and amendment of an made,
in a public place, ordinance or proposition there
before the approve through an must be
election registrar initiative and referendum an actual
or his designated appropria
representatives, Any proposition or ordinance tion and
in the presence of approved through an initiative certificate
a representative and referendum shall not be of
of the proponent repealed, modified or availabilit
and of the amended by the sanggunian y of
sanggunian within 6 months from the date funds.
concerned. of approval thereof. (Land
5. Date of initiative Bank of
is set by It may be amended, modified the
COMELEC if the or repealed within 3 years Philippin
required number thereafter by a vote of ¾ of es v.
of signatures has all its members (LGC, Sec. Cacayura
been obtained 125) n, G.R. No.
(LGC, Sec. 122) 191667,
NOTE: In case of barangays, April 17,
Effectivity of the period shall be 18 months 2013)
proposition after the approval thereof
(LGC, Sec. 125) NOTE: Such
If the proposition is are null and
approved by a ULTRA VIRES void and
majority of the votes ACTS cannot be
cast, it will take effect ratified or
POLITICAL LAW
validate NOTE: An act from its infirmity is
d. attended only the an implied
by an Sanggu ratification
Instanc irregularity, but niang that validates
e when remains within Panlala the contract.
a the wigan (Ocampo v.
defecti municipality’s is People, G.R.
ve power, is unenfor No. 156547-
munici considered as ceable. 51 & 156382-
pal an ultra vires The 85, February
contrac act subject to Sanggu 4, 2008)
t may ratification nian’s
be and/or failure Doctrine of
ratified validation. to estoppel
impugn does not
Ratificati Examples: the apply
on of contrac against a
defective a. Those t’s municipal
municip entered validity corporation
al into by the despite to validate
contract improper knowle an invalid
s is department dge of contract
possible , board, performance.
only officer of A reason
when agent; The doctrine of frequently
there is b. Those that estoppel cannot assigned for
non- not comply be applied as this rule is that
complia with the against a to apply the
nce with formal municipal doctrine of
the requiremen corporation to estoppel
require ts of a validate a against a
ments of written contract which municipality in
authorit contract it has no power such a case
y of the e.g., the to make, or would be to
officer Statute of which it is enable it to do
entering Frauds. authorized to indirectly
into the (Land Bank make only what it cannot
contract of the under do directly. (In
and/or Philippines prescribed Re: Pechueco
conformi v. conditions, Sons Company
ty with Cacayuran, within v. Provincial
the supra.) prescribed Board of
formal limitations, or in Antique, G.R.
requisite Contracts a prescribed No. L-27038,
s of a entered into mode or Jan. 30, 1970)
written by a local chief manner,
contract executive may although the Authorit
as be subject to corporation has y to
prescrib constructive accepted the negotiat
ed by ratification benefits thereof e and
law. and the other secure
Ratificati A loan party has fully grants
on may agreement performed its
either be entered into by part of the The local chief
expresse the provincial agreement, or executive may,
d or governor has expended upon authority
implied. without prior large sums in of the
authorization preparation for sanggunian,
LocAl GoveRNMents
negotiate and of Sale, Deed of
secure financial Mortgage, and speaks of prior consists of the
grants or Deed of authorization or following
donations in kind, Assignment. authority from the processes:
in support of the Sangguniang advertisement,
basic services or Thereafter, Panlungsod and not pre-bid
facilities Ong, a member ratification. It conference,
enumerated of the City cannot be denied eligibility
under Sec. 17 of Council, that the City screening of
LGC, from local questioned the Council issued Res. prospective
and foreign lack of 280 authorizing bidders, receipt
assistance ratification by Mayor Tiama to and opening of
agencies without the City Council purchase the bids, evaluation
necessity of of the subject lots. of bids, post-
securing contracts, qualification, and
clearance or among others. NOTE: As aptly award of
approval from Should all the pointed out by the contract. [R.A.
any department, documents Ombudsman, 9184, IRR, Sec 5
agency, or office pertaining to ratification by the (h)]
of the national the purchase of City Council is not a
government or the lots bear condition sine qua Requirement of
from any higher the ratification non for a mayor to public bidding
LGU; Provided, by the City enter into
that projects Council of contracts. With the In the award of
financed by such Calamba? resolution issued government
grants or by the Sangguniang contracts, the law
assistance with A: NO. Sec. Panlungsod, it requires
national security 22(c), LGC, cannot be said that competitive
implications shall provides: (c) there was evident public bidding. It
be approved by Unless bad faith in is aimed to
the national otherwise purchasing the protect the public
agency concerned provided in this subject lots. The interest by giving
(LGC, Sec. 23) Code, no lack of ratification the public the
contract may be alone does not best possible
Q: The City entered into by characterize the advantages thru
Council of the local chief purchase of the open
Calamba issued executive in properties as one competition. It is
several behalf of the that gave a mechanism that
resolutions LGU without unwarranted enables the
authorizing prior benefits to Pamana government
Mayor Tiama to authorization by or Prudential Bank agency to avoid
negotiate with the sanggunian or one that caused or preclude
landowners concerned. undue injury to anomalies in the
within the Clearly, when Calamba City. execution of
vicinity of the local chief (Vergara v. public contracts.
Barangays Real, executive enters Ombudsman, G.R. (Garcia v. Burgos,
Halang, and Uno, into contracts, No. 174567, March G.R. No. 124130,
for a new city the law 12, 2009) June 29, 1998)
hall site and to
purchase several Competitive or Failure of bidding
lots and to Public Bidding
execute, sign and When any of the
deliver the Refers to a method following occurs:
required of procurement 1. There is only one
documents. which is open to offeror
Mayor Tiama participation by 2. When all the
then entered any interested offers are
into MOA, Deed party and which non-
POLITICAL LAW
complying or Every local a governmental
unacceptable. government unit, as function or duty, no rule is that a
(Bagatsing v. a corporation, shall recovery, as a rule, municipal
Committee on have the power to can be had from the corporation
Privatization, sue and be sued municipality unless can be held
G.R. No. 112399, (LGC, Sec. 22). there is an existing liable to third
July 14, 1995) statute on the persons ex
LGUs have the matter, nor from its contractu or
power to sue and officers so long as ex delicto.
be sued. Because of they performed their
LIABILITY the statutory duties honestly and There can be
waiver, LGUs are in good faith or that no hard and
not immune they did not act fast rule for
wantonly and purposes of
from suit (Agra, existing statute on the matter, maliciously. With determining
Amicus Imperiorum nor from its officers so long as respect to the true
Locorum, 2016). they performed their duties proprietary nature of an
honestly and in good faith or functions, the settled undertaking
Local government that they did not act wantonly or function of
units and their and maliciously. With respect a
officials are not to proprietary functions, the municipality;
exempt from liability settled rule is that a municipal the
for death or injury to corporation can be held liable surrounding
persons or damage to to third persons ex contractu circumstance
property (LGC, Sec. or ex delicto. s of a
24). particular
There can be no hard and fast case are to
Suability is not the rule for purposes of be
same as liability determining the true nature of considered
an undertaking or function of and will be
It is a categorical a municipality; the decisive. The
statement that LGUs surrounding circumstances of basic
do not enjoy absolute a particular case are to be element,
and unqualified considered and will be however
immunity from suits. decisive. The basic element, beneficial to
Therefore, an LGU’s however beneficial to the the public the
suability is something public the undertaking may undertaking
that is recognized but be, is that it is governmental may be, is
their liability is in essence; otherwise the that it is
subject to evidence function becomes private or governmenta
(The Local proprietary in character. l in essence;
Government Code (Municipality of Malasiqui otherwise the
Revisited 2011 Ed., v. Heirs of Fontanilla, G.R. No. function
p144, Aquilino L-29993 October 23, 1978) becomes
Pimentel, Jr.). private or
Scope of municipal liability proprietary
Governmental vs. in character.
proprietary Municipal liabilities arise (Municipality
functions from various sources in the of Malasiqui
conduct of municipal affairs, v. Heirs of
If the injury is caused both governmental and Fontanilla,
in the course of the proprietary. G.R. No. L-
performance of a 29993,
governmental function Governmental vs. October 23,
or duty, no recovery, as proprietary functions 1978)
a rule, can be had
from the municipality If the injury is caused in the NOTE: Tests
unless there is an course of the performance of of liability is
LocAl GoveRNMents
the damages pr ember of
nature of for the o a city or
task death of, or pe municip
being injuries rl al police
perform suffered y force
ed. by, any pe refuses
person by rt or fails
Liabilities of LGUs reason of ai to
(1994, 2009 Bar) the ns render
defective . aid or
1. LG condition In protecti
Us of roads, w on to
and streets, hi any
thei bridges, ch person
r public ca in case
offi buildings, se of
cial and other , danger
s public Ar to life or
are works t. property
not under their 2 , such
exe control or 1 peace
mpt supervisio 8 officer
fro n. (New 0 shall be
m Civil Code, sh primaril
liab Art. 2189) all y liable
ility be for
aris NOTE: LGU ap damages
ing is liable pl and the
fro even if the ic city or
m road does ab municip
dea not belong le. ality
th to it as long [ shall be
or as it N subsidia
inju exercises e rily
ry control or w responsi
to supervisio Ci ble
per n over the vi therefor.
son said roads. l (New
s or C Civil
da 3. The State o Code,
ma is d Art.34)
ge responsibl e,
to e in like A Sources of municipal
pro manner rt liability
per when it ic
ty acts le 1. Liability arising from
(LG through a 2 violation of law
C, special 1
Sec. agent; but 8 NOTE:
24). not when 0 Liability
the (6 arising
2. LGU damage )] from
s has been violation
shal caused by 4. W of law
l be the official he such as
liab to whom n closing
le the task a municipa
for done m l streets
POLITICAL LAW
wit emnifying tort express
hou persons contract,
t prejudiced NOTE: They implies an
ind thereby, may be held obligation
liable for upon the
non-payment inheren torts arising municipality
of wages to its t from the to do justice
employees powers performanc with respect
due to lack of of the e of their to the same.
funds or other local private and (Province of
causes or its govern proprietary Cebu v. IAC,
refusal to ment functions G.R. No.
abide a unit or under the 72841,
temporary do not principle of January 29,
restraining comply respondeat 1987)
order may with the superior.
result in substan (City of NOTE: The
contempt tive Manila v. obligation of
charge and require Intermediat a municipal
fine. ments e Court of corporation
2. Liability for of law Appeals 179 upon the
contracts they are SCRA 428) doctrine of
not an implied
NOTE: liable. Doctrine of contract does
a. LGU is b. A Implied not connote
liable private Municipal an
provided individ Liability enforceable
that the ual who obligation.
contract deals A municipality Some specific
is intra with a may become principle or
vires or it munici obligated, upon situation of
is ultra pal an implied which equity
vires that corpora contract, to pay takes
is only tion is the reasonable cognizance
attended impute value of the must be the
by d with benefits foundation of
irregularit CONST accepted or the claim.
ies, which RUCTIV
appropriated by The principle
does not E
it as to which it of liability
preclude knowle
has the general rests upon
ratificatio dge of
power to the theory
n or the the
contract. The that the
applicatio extent
doctrine of obligation
n of the of the
power implied implied by
doctrine
of or municipal law to pay
estoppel. authori liability has does not
ty of been said to originate in
If it is the apply to all the unlawful
ultra munici cases where contract, but
vires, pal money or other arises
which are corpora property of a
entered tion to party is
into enter received under
beyond into such
the contrac circumstances
express, ts. that the general
implied law,
or 3. Liability for independent of
LocAl GoveRNMents
from jeepney. The heirs members of the of Fontanilla
considerations of Jessica group to perform filed a complaint
outside it. The instituted an a play during the against the
measure of action for fiesta was Municipality. Is
recovery is the damages against Fontanilla. Before the municipality
benefit received by the Municipality. the dramatic part liable?
the municipal Is the municipality of the play was
corporation. The liable for the tort reached, the stage A: YES. The town
province cannot set committed by its collapsed and fiesta was an
up the plea that the employee? Fontanilla was exercise of a
contract was ultra pinned private or
vires and still A: NO. The driver of underneath
retain benefits. the dump truck was resulting to his proprietary funct
(Province of Cebu v. performing duties death. The heirs of the
IAC,ibid.) or tasks pertaining
to his office municipality.Holdin provide for an increase in
Tort liability of LGUs – he was on his way g a fiesta, even if the salary of the Vice Mayor
to get a load of sand purpose is to despite the fact that such
1. LGU- and gravel for the commemorate a position is entitled to an
engaged in repair of San religious or annual salary of P16,044.
government Fernando's historical event of X questioned the failure
al function– municipal streets. the town, is in of the Sangguniang Bayan
Not liable The municipality essence an act for to appropriate an amount
cannot be held the special benefit of for the payment of his
XPN: Unless it’s liable for the tort the community and salary. The Sangguniang
expressly made committed by its not for the general Bayan increased his
liable by a regular employee, welfare of the public salary and enacted a
statute or its who was then performed in Resolution No. 2
officers acted engaged in the pursuance of a appropriating an amount
wantonly or discharge of policy of the state. as payment of the unpaid
maliciously. governmental No governmental or salaries. However, the
(Torio v. functions. The death public policy of the Resolution was vetoed by
Fontanilla, G.R. of the passenger –– state is involved in the respondent mayor.
No. L- 29993 tragic and the celebration of a Can X avail of damages
deplorable though town fiesta. due to the failure of the
October 23, it may be –– (Municipality of respondents to pay him
1978) imposed on the Malasiqui v. Heirs of his lawful salary?
municipality no Fontanilla, G.R. No.
2. LGU- duty to pay L-29993, Oct. 23, A: YES. The Mayor alone
engaged monetary 1978) should be held liable and
in compensation. not the whole Sanggunian
proprietar (Municipality of San Q: X was elected as Bayan. Respondent Mayor
y Fernando v. Hon. Vice Mayor of vetoed the Resolution
function– Firme, G.R. No. L- Dasol, Pangasinan. without just cause. While
Liable The Sangguniang "to veto or not to veto
52179, April 8,
1991) Bayan adopted involves the exercise of
Q: A collision Resolution No. 1 discretion" as contended by
between a Q: The which increased respondents, respondent
passenger jeepney, Municipality of the salaries of the Mayor, however, exceeded
sand and gravel Malasiqui Mayor and his authority in an
truck, and a dump authorized the Municipal arbitrary manner when he
truck driven by celebration of Treasurer to vetoed the resolution since
Monte and owned town fiesta by way P18,636 and there are sufficient
by the Municipality of a resolution P16,044 per municipal funds from
of San Fernando and appropriated annum which the salary of the
occurred which an amount for the respectively. petitioner could be paid.
resulted to the construction of 2 However, the
death of Jessica, a stages. One of the Resolution did not Respondent Mayor’s
passenger of the
POLITICAL LAW
refusal, neglect or involv ures
omission in complying Jurisdictional e a governing
with the directives of Responsibility compo boundary
the Provincial Budget for Settlement nent disputes,
Officer and the of Boundary city or which
Director of the Bureau Dispute munici succinctly
of Local Government pality, includes the
that the salary of X be Generally, the on the filing of the
provided for and paid rule is to settle one proper
the prescribed salary boundary hand, petition, and
rate, is reckless and disputes and a in case of
oppressive, hence, by between and highly failure to
way of example or among LGUs urbani amicably
correction for the amicably. zed settle, a
public good, Specifically, city on formal trial
respondent Mayor is boundary the will be
liable personally to disputes other, conducted
the petitioner for involving the or and a decision
exemplary or LGUs are betwe will be
corrective damages. referred for en or rendered
(Pilar v. Sangguniang settlement to among thereafter. An
bayan ng Dasol, the sanggunians highly aggrieved
Pangasinan,G.R. No. concerned. For urbani party can
63216, March 12, example, those zed appeal the
1984) involving: (a) cities. decision of
barangays (The the
SETTLEMENT OF within one Local sanggunian to
BOUNDARY DISPUTES municipality or Govern the
city are ment appropriate
Boundary Dispute referred to the Code RTC. (Calanza
Sangguniang Revisit v. PICOP, G.R.
When a portion or the Bayan or the ed No. 146622,
whole of the Sangguniang 2011 April 24,
territorial area of an Panglungsod; Ed., p. 2009)
LGU is claimed by two (b) 275-
or more LGUs. municipalities 276, Said rules and regulations
within the same Aquilin state:
province to the o (a) Filing of
Sangguniang Piment petition -
Panlalawigan el, Jr) The
and (c) sangguni
municipalities Procedure for an
or component Settling Boundary concerne
cities of Disputes d may
different initiate
provinces are Article action by
jointly referred 17, filing a
to the Rule III petition,
sanggunians of the in the
concerned. Rules form of a
and resolutio
The same rule Regulat n, with
mentioned in ions of the
paragraph (c) the sangguni
is followed LGC an having
when the outline jurisdicti
boundary s the on over
disputes proced the
LocAl GoveRNMents
disp opy o ic
ute. of n at
(b) Cont the io
ents law o n
of or f of
petit stat th
ion - ute t e
The crea h pr
petit ting e ov
ion the in
shall LGU b ci
state or o al,
the any u ci
grou othe n ty,
nds, r d or
reas doc a m
ons ume r u
or nt i ni
justif sho e ci
icati win s p
ons g al
ther pro o as
efor of of f se
e. crea ss
(c) Doc tion or
t
ume of ,
h
nts the as
e
atta LGU th
ched ; e
to 2. Pro L ca
petit vinc G se
ion - ial, U m
The city, s ay
petit mu be
ion nici c ,
shall pal, o as
be or n to
acco bar c te
mpa ang e rr
nied ay r it
by: map n or
1. D , as e ial
u the d ju
l case ; ri
y may 4. W sd
a be, r ic
u duly i ti
t cert t o
h ified t n
e by e o
n the n ve
ti LM r
c B. c th
a 3. Tec e e
t hnic r di
e al t sp
d desc i ut
c ripti f e
POLITICAL LAW
d a among the parties
a acco themselves concerned,
r rdin a presiding DILG, local
e g to officer and a assessor,
secretary. In COMELEC,
record be furnished case of NSO, and
s in copies disagreemen other
custod thereof and t, selection NGAs
y; shall be shall be by concerned.
5. Writte given fifteen drawing lot. (i) Appeal -
n (15) (g) Failure to Within the
declar working settle - In time and
ations days within the event manner
or which to file the prescribed
sworn their sanggunian by the
statem answers. fails to Rules of
ents of (e) Hearing - amicably Court, any
the Within five settle the party may
people (5) working dispute elevate the
residin days after within sixty decision of
g in receipt of the (60) days the
the answer of from the sanggunia
disput the adverse date such n
ed party, the dispute was concerned
area; sanggunian referred to the
and shall hear thereto, it proper
6. Such the case and shall issue a Regional
other allow the certification Trial Court
docum parties to the effect having
ents or concerned to and copies jurisdictio
inform present their thereof shall n over the
ation respective be furnished dispute by
as may evidences. the parties filing
be (f) Joint hearing concerned. therewith
requir - When two (h) Decision - the
ed by or more Within sixty appropriat
the sanggunians (60) days e pleading,
sangg jointly hear from the stating
unian a case, they date the among
hearin may sit en certification others, the
g the banc or was issued, nature of
disput designate the dispute the
e. their shall be dispute,
respective formally the
(d) Answer of representati tried and decision of
adverse party - ves. Where decided by the
Upon receipt representati the sanggunia
by the ves are sanggunian n
sanggunian designated, concerned. concerned
concerned of there shall Copies of and the
the petition be an equal the decision reasons for
together with number of shall, within appealing
the required representati fifteen (15) therefrom.
documents, ves from days from The
the LGU or each the Regional
LGUs sanggunian. promulgatio Trial Court
complained They shall n thereof, be shall
against shall elect from furnished decide the
LocAl GoveRNMents
case within power to original
one (1) year dispute. expropriate; jurisdiction in all
from the filing (b) Resolution No. cases not within
thereof. Q: (1.) There was 1 has been voided the exclusive
Decisions on a boundary since the jurisdiction of any
boundary dispute between Sangguniang court or quasi-
disputes Dueñas, a Panlalawigan judicial agency.
promulgated municipality, and disapproved it for (Municipality of
jointly by two Passi, an being arbitrary; Kananga v.
(2) or more independent and Madrono, G.R. No.
sangguniang component city, (c) The 141375. April 30,
panlalawigan both of the same Municipality of 2003)
s shall be province. State Santa has other
heard by the how the two local and better lots for
Regional Trial government units that purpose.
Court of the should settle their Resolve the case VACANCIES AND
province, boundary dispute. with reasons. SUCCESSION
which first (2005 Bar)
took (2.) The Vacancy
cognizance of Sangguniang A: Since Passi is an
the Bayan of the independent Absence should
Municipality of component city, be reasonably
Santa, Ilocos Sur while Duenas is a construed to
passed Resolution municipality, the mean ‘effective’
No. 1 authorizing procedure in absence, that is,
its Mayor to Section 118 of the one that renders
initiate a petition Local Government the officer
for the Code does not concerned
expropriation of a apply to them. powerless, for the
lot owned by Since there is no time being, to
Christina as site law providing for discharge the
for its municipal the jurisdiction of powers and
sports center. This any court or quasi- prerogatives of
was approved by judicial agency over his/her office.
the Mayor. the settlement of There is no
However, the their boundary vacancy
Sangguniang dispute, the whenever the
Panlalawigan of Regional Trial Court office is occupied
Ilocos Sur has jurisdiction to by a legally
disapproved the adjudicate it. Under qualified
Resolution as Section 19 (6) of incumbent. A
there might still be the Judiciary sensu contrario,
other available Reorganization Act, there is a vacancy
lots in Santa for a the Regional Trial when there is no
sports center. Court has exclusive
Nonetheless, the
Municipality of person lawfully the elective post
Santa, through its authorized to Permanent
Mayor, filed a assume and exercise Vacancy:
complaint for at present the duties
eminent domain. of the office. Arises when an elected local
Christina opposed (Gamboa, Jr. v. official:
this on the Aguirre, G.R. No.
following grounds: 134213, July 20, 1. Fills a higher vacant
1999) office; or
(a) The 2. Refuses to assume
Municipality of Classes of office; or
Santa has no vacancies in 3. Fails to qualify; or
POLITICAL LAW
4. Dies; or c o ian member; in
5. Removed from e f case of the
office; or ; permanent
6. Voluntarily a disability of
resigns; or 3 b highest
7. Permanently . s ranking
incapacitated to T e Sanggunian
discharge the r n member,
functions of his a c c. Second highest
office. (LGC, Sec. v e ranking
44) e ; Sanggunian
l member
Temporary Vacancy: 3
a . 2. Office of the Mayor
Arises when an elected b T a. Vice-Mayor; in
official is temporarily r r his absence,
incapacitated to o a b. Highest ranking
perform his duties due a v Sanggunian
to legal or physical d e member;
reason such as: l
;
a
1 o
b
. r
r
P
o
h Arises when an elected official
a
y is temporarily incapacitated
d
s to perform his duties due to ;
i legal or physical reason such
c as: o
a r
l 1 4. Suspension from
. office. (LGC, Sec. 46)
s P
i h Filling of vacancy
c y
k s
1. Automatic
n i
succession
e c
2. By appointment
s a
(LGC, Sec. 45)
s l
; Rules of
s
i succession in case
2 of permanent
. c
k vacancies (1995,
L 1996, 2002 Bar)
e n
a e
s A. In case of
v permanent
e s
; vacancy in:
1. Office of the
o Governor
f 2
. a. Vice-
L Governo
a r; in his
e
b absence,
a
s b. Highest
v
e ranking
e
n Sanggun
LocAl GoveRNMents
i gg k l
n uni i coun
an n cilor’
c me g s
a mb succe
s er, S ssion
e c. Sec a to
on n the
o d g office
f hig g of
he u vice-
t st n mayo
h ra i r
e nki a cann
ng n ot be
p Sa consi
e ng m dere
r gu e d a
m nia m volu
a n b ntary
n me e renu
e mb r nciat
n er , ion
t of his
3. Office of the Vice N office
d Governor or Vice- O as
i Mayor T coun
s a. Hi E cilor,
a gh : since
b est it
i ran T occu
l kin h rred
i g e by
t Sa oper
y ng h ation
gu i of
o nia g law.
f n h (Mon
me e tebo
h mb s n v.
i er; t COM
g in ELEC
h cas r , G.R.
e e a No.
s of n 1804
t the k 44,
per i April 8, 2008)
r ma n
a ne g 4. Second highest
n nt ranking
k dis m Sanggunian
i abi u member.Office of
n lity n the Punong
g of i Barangay
hig c a. H
S he i i
a st p g
n ran a h
POLITICAL LAW
e isa up by exec
s bili appoi utive
t ty ntmen for
of t in the
r hig the sang
a he follow guni
n st ing ang
k ran manne panl
i kin r: alaw
n g igan
g Sa 1. T and
ng he panl
S gu Pr ungs
a nia es od of
n n id highl
g me en y
g mb t, urba
u er, th nize
n b. Second ro d
i highest u cities
a ranking g and
n Sanggunian h inde
member th pend
m e ent
e NOTE: For Ex com
m purposes of ec pone
b succession, ut nt
e ranking in the iv citie
r Sanggunian e s
; shall be Se [LGC
determined on cr , Sec.
i the basis of the et 45
n proportion of ar (a)
the votes y, (1)]
obtained by sh 2. The
c
each winning all Gove
a
candidate to ap rnor
s
the total po shall
e
number of in appo
registered t int
o voters in each th the
f district in the e politi
immediately po cal
t preceding lit nomi
h local election. ic nees
e [LGC, Sec. 44 al for
(d)(3)] no the
p mi sang
e B. In case ne guni
r automatic e ang
m succession is of panl
a not applicable th ungs
n and there is e od of
e vacancy in the lo com
n membership of ca pone
t the l nt
sanggunian, it ch cities
d shall be filled ief and
LocAl GoveRNMents
t ncerne elected as mayor’s
h d [LGC, Mayor, Aquino political
e Sec. 45 as Vice-Mayor party.
(a)(2)] and Tamayo as Petitioners,
s 3. The the highest however,
a city or ranking contend that
n munici member of the it was the
g pal Sanggunian. In elevation of
g mayor 1999, Mayor Tamayo to
u shall Calimlim died, the position
n appoin thus Vice- of vice-mayor
i t the Mayor Aquino which
a recom succeeded him resulted in a
n menda as Mayor. permanent
g tion of Accordingly, vacancy and
the the highest- thus, the
b sanggu ranking person to be
a niang member of the appointed to
y barang Sanggunian, the vacated
a ay Tamayo, was position
n concer elevated to the should come
ned position of the from the
c [LGC, Vice-Mayor. same political
o Sec. 45 Since a vacancy party as that
(a)(3)] occurred in the of Tamayo, in
Sangguniang this case
GR: The officials shall Bayan by the Navarro. Are
successor (by remain in office elevation of the
appointment) in a hold-over petitioner respondents
should come capacity Tamayo to the correct?
from the same pursuant to R.A. office of the
political party as 9164. (Adap v. Vice-Mayor, A: NO. With
the sanggunian COMELEC, G.R. Governor the elevation
member whose No. 161984, Agbayani of Tamayo to
position has February appointed the position of
become vacant. 21, 2007) Navarro as Vice-Mayor, a
Member of the vacancy
XPN: In the case The “last Sangguniang occurred in
of vacancy in the vacancy” in the Bayan. Navarro the
Sangguniang Sanggunian belonged to the
barangay. same political
It refers to the party as that of
The reason for vacancy created Tamayo.
the rule is to by the elevation
maintain the of the member Respondents
party formerly argue that it
representation occupying the was the former
as willed by the next higher in vice- mayor
people in the rank, which in Aquino who
election. turn also had created the
become vacant permanent
Hold-over status by any of the vacancy in the
causes Sanggunian
In case of failure enumerated. and thus, the
of elections appointee
involving Q: In the 1997 must come
barangay officials, local elections from the
the incumbent Calimlim was former vice
POLITICAL LAW
Sanggunian that construction will GR: The acting working days.
should be filled up result in absurdity. Governor or
with someone who (Navarro v. CA, G.R. Mayor cannot 2. If travelling
should belong to the No. 141307, March exercise the outside his
political party of 28, 2001) power to jurisdiction but
petitioner Tamayo. appoint, within the country
Under Sec 44 of the NOTE: In case of suspend or for a period not
LGC, a permanent vacancy in the dismiss exceeding 3 days,
vacancy arises when representation of employees. the local chief
an elective official the youth and the executive may
fills a higher vacant barangay in the XPN: If the designate in
office, refuses to Sanggunian, it shall period of writing the officer-
assume office, fails to be filled temporary in-charge of their
qualify, dies, is automatically by incapacity respective offices.
removed from office, the official next in exceeds 30 The OIC
voluntarily resigns, rank of the
or is otherwise organization cannot exercise the he has reported back to
permanently concerned. [LGC, power to appoint, office, if the temporary
incapacitated to Sec. 45(d)] suspend or dismiss incapacity was due to
discharge the employee. a. Leave of
functions of his office. Rules on temporary absence;
Sec 45 (b) of the vacancies (2002 Bar) If no designation was b. Travel abroad;
same law provides made, then the vice and
that “only the 1. In case of governor, vice c. Suspension
nominee of the temporary mayor, or in his
political party under vacancy of the absence, the highest- 2. Upon submission by
which the post of the local ranking member of the local chief
Sanggunian member chief executive the sanggunian is executive of the
concerned has been (leave of authorized to necessary documents
elected and whose absence, travel assume the office on showing that the legal
elevation to the abroad, and the 4th day of causes no longer exist, if
position next higher suspension): absence of the local the temporary
in rank created the the Vice- chief executive. incapacity was due to
last vacancy in the Governor, City legal reasons[LGC, Sec.
Sanggunian shall be or Municipal 3. If the local chief 46(b)].
appointed in the Vice Mayor, or executive’s travel
manner herein the highest exceeds 3 days, the Rules on consecutiveness
provided. The ranking vice governor or vice of terms and/or
appointee shall come sangguniang mayor, or in his involuntary interruption:
from the political barangay shall absence, the highest
party as that of the automatically ranking sanggunian 1.When a permanent
Sanggunian member exercise the member assumes the vacancy occurs in an elective
who caused the powers and office of the local position and the official
vacancy…”The term perform the chief executive. merely assumed the
“last vacancy” is thus duties and position pursuant to the
used in Sec. 45(b) to functions of Termination of rules on succession under
differentiate it from the local chief temporary the LGC, then his service for
the other vacancy executive incapacity the unexpired portion of the
previously created. concerned. term of the replaced official
The term “by no Such automatic 1. Upon cannot be treated as one full
means” refers to the exercise means submission to term as contemplated under
vacancy in the No. 8 that they no the appropriate the subject constitutional
position which longer have to sanggunian of a and statutory provision that
occurred with the be appointed to written service cannot be counted in
elevation of 8th the position by declaration by the application of any term
placer to the 7th anyone. the local chief limit. If the official runs
position in the executive again for the same position
Sanggunian. Such NOTE: concerned that he held prior to his
LocAl GoveRNMents
assumption of the been election
higher office, then his 3. The abolition dismis protest and
succession to said of an elective sed said decision
position is by local office due (Lonz becomes final
operation of law and is to the anida after said
considered an conversion of a and official had
involuntary severance municipality to Dizon) served the
or interruption. a city does not, . The full term for
by itself, work break said office,
2. An elective official, to interrupt the or then his loss
who has served for incumbent interr in the
three consecutive official’s uption election
terms and who did not continuity of need contest does
seek the elective service. not be not
position for what for a constitute an
could be his fourth 4. Preventive full interruption
term, but later won in suspension is term since he has
a recall election, had an not a term- of managed to
interruption in the interrupting three serve the
continuity of the event as the years term from
official’s service. For, elective officer’s or for start to finish.
he had become in the continued stay the His full
interim, i.e., from the and entitlement major service,
end of the 3rd term up to the office part of despite the
to the recall election, a remain the 3- defeat, should
private citizen. unaffected year be counted in
during the term; the
period of an application of
suspension, interr term limits
although he is uption because the
barred from for nullification
exercising the any of his
functions of his length proclamation
office during of came after
this period. time, the expiration
provid of the term.
5. When a ed the (Abundo v.
candidate is cause COMELEC,
proclaimed as is G.R. No.
winner for an involu 201716, Jan.
elective ntary, 8, 2013)
position and is
assumes office, suffici
his term is ent to
interrupted break RECALL
when he loses the
in an election contin It is a mode
protest and is uity of of removal of
ousted from servic a public
office, thus e. officer, by the
disenabling him people,
from serving 6. Wh before the
what would en an end of his
otherwise be official term. The
the unexpired is people’s
portion of his defeat prerogative
term of office ed in to remove a
had the protest an public officer
POLITICAL LAW
is an expenses its discretion the 2014 GAA
incident incident to when it be deemed
of their recall elections suspended the insufficient,
sovereig shall be borne recall election? then the
n by the COMELEC
power, COMELEC. For A: YES. The Chairman may
and in this purpose, COMELEC exercise his
the the annual committed authority to
absence General grave abuse of augment such
of Appropriations discretion in line item
constitu Act (GAA) shall issuing appropriation
tional include a Resolution Nos. from the
restrain contingency 9864 and 9882. COMELEC’s
t, the fund at the The 2014 GAA existing
power disposal of the provides the savings, as this
is COMELEC for line item augmentation
implied the conduct of appropriation to is expressly
in all recall elections allow the authorized in
govern (LGC, Sec. 75) COMELEC to the 2014 GAA.
mental perform its Resolution No.
operatio Q: Goh filed constitutional 9864 is
ns. before the mandate of therefore
(Garcia COMELEC a conducting partially
v. recall petition recall elections. reverse and
COMEL against Mayor There is no need set aside
EC, G.R. Bayron due to for insofar as it
No. loss of trust supplemental directed the
111511, and legislation to suspension of
Oct. 5, confidence. On authorize the any and all
1993) 1 April 2014, COMELEC to proceedings in
the COMELEC conduct recall the recall
NOTE: promulgated elections for petition. (Goh
All Resolution No. 2014. v. Bayron, G.R
9864 Considering that No. 212584,
there is an November 25,
which found the What existing line 2014)
recall petition Resolution Nos. item
sufficient in form 9864 and 9882 appropriation Ground for
and substance, have given with for the conduct recall
but suspended one hand (the of recall
the funding of affirmation of elections in the The only
any and all recall the sufficiency 2014 GAA, we ground for
elections until of the Recall see no reason recall of local
the resolution of Petition), they why the government
the funding have taken COMELEC is officials is
issue. Petitioner away with the unable to loss of
submits that the other (the issue perform its confidence. It
same is a grave of lack constitutional is not subject
abdication and funding). The mandate to to judicial
wanton betrayal COMELEC “enforce and inquiry. The
of the suspended the administer all Court ruled
constitutional holding of a laws and that ‘loss of
mandate of the recall election regulations confidence’ as
COMELEC and a supposedly relative to the a ground for
grievous through lack of conduct of xxx recall is a
violation of the funding. Did recall.” Should political
sovereign power the COMELEC the funds question.
of the people. gravely abuse appropriated in (Garcia v.
LocAl GoveRNMents
COMELEC, G.R. No. however, That dismissed upon
111511, Oct. 5, concerned and in no case shall the effectivity of
1993) supported by the the required RA 9244.
registered voters in number of (Approved
Recall initiation the LGU concerned petitioners be February 19,
during the election less than 2004)
The Recall of any in which the local fifteen
elective official sought to be thousand(15,0 Recall process
provincial, city, recalled was elected 00); and
municipal or subject to the d. At least ten 1. Petition of a
barangay official following percent (10%) registered
shall be percentage in the case of voter in the
commenced by a requirements: LGUs with a LGU
petition of a voting concerned,
registered voter in a. At least twenty- population of supported
the LGU five percent over three by
(25%) in the hundred percentage
case LGUs with thousand of registered
a voting (300,000):Prov voters during
population of ided, however, the election
not more than that in no case in which the
twenty shall the local official
thousand required sought to be
(20,000); petitioners be recalled was
b. At least twenty less than forty- elected.
percent (20%) five thousand 2. Within 15
in the case of (45,000) (LGC, days after
LGUs with a Sec. 70, as filing,
voting amended by RA COMELEC
population of at 9244) must certify
least twenty the
thousand(20,00 NOTE: By virtue of sufficiency of
0) but not RA 9244, Secs. 70 the required
more than and 71 of the LGC number of
seventy-five were amended, and signatures.
thousand the Preparatory
(75,000): Recall Assembly NOTE: Failure to
Provided, That has been obtain required
in no case shall eliminated as a number
the required mode of instituting automatically
petitioners be recall of elective nullifies petition.
less than five local government
thousand officials. 3. Within 3 days
(5,000); of
c. At least fifteen All pending certification
percent (15%) petitions for recall of sufficiency,
in the case of initiated through COMELEC
LGUs with a the Preparatory shall provide
voting Recall Assembly the official
population of at shall be considered with copy
least seventy-
five thousand of petition and a local newspaper of
(75,000) but shall cause its general circulation.
not more than publication for Petition must also be
three hundred three weeks posted for 10 to 20
thousand (once a week) in days at conspicuous
(300,000): a national places (LGC, Sec. 70 (b)
Provided, newspaper and (2), as amended by RA
POLITICAL LAW
9244) successor in the person of the election. He is
candidate receiving the automatically
NOTE: Protest highest number of votes cast Gover considered as
should be filed at during the election on recall. nor duly
this point and Peralt registered
ruled with finality Should the official sought to a can candidate
within 15 days be recalled receive the highest run (LGC, Sec. 71)
after filing. number of votes, confidence in again He is not allowed to resign
him is thereby affirmed, and as (LGC, Sec. 72)
4. COMELEC he shall continue in govern
verifies and office(LGC, Sec. 72) or. He Prohibition from
authenticates did resignation
the signature Q: Governor Peralta was not
5. COMELEC serving his third term when fully The elective
announces he lost his governorship in serve local official
acceptance of a recall election. his sought to be
candidates. third recalled shall
6. COMELEC sets A. Who shall succeed term, not be
election within 30 Governor Peralta in his becaus allowed to
days after the office as Governor? e he resign while
filing of the B. Can Governor Peralta run lost in the recall
resolution or again as governor in the the process is in
petition for recall next election? recall progress
in the C. Can Governor Peralta electio (LGC, Sec. 73)
case of refuse to run in the recall n. His
barangay/city/mu election and instead resign third Limitations on recall
nicipality, and from his position as term (2008 Bar)
45days in the governor? should
case of provincial not be 1. Any
officials. Officials A: The candidate who includ elective
sought to be received the highest number ed in local
recalled are of votes in the recall will compu official
automatic succeed Governor Peralta ting may be
candidates (LGC, (LGC, Sec. 72) the the
Secs. 70 & 71) three- subject
term of a
NOTE: The official limit. recall
or officials sought (Lonz election
to be recalled shall anida only
automatically be v. once
considered as duly COME during
registered LEC, his term
candidate or G.R. of office
candidates to the No. for loss
pertinent positions 13515 of
and, like other 0, July confidenc
candidates, shall 28, e; and
be entitled to be 1999) 2. No recall
voted upon (LGC, shall take
Sec. 71) Gover place
nor within
Effectivity of Recall Peralt one (1)
a year
The recall of an cannot from the
elective local official refuse date of
shall be effective only to run the
upon the election and in the official’s
proclamation of a recall assumpti
LocAl GoveRNMents
on the one-year Nov. 4, Q. Will it be proper for
to period provided 1996). the COMELEC to act
offic in Section 74
e or (b) of the LGC.
one (Claudio v. on a petition 9164 and RA
(1) COMELEC, G.R. for recall 10742, is
yea No. 140560. signed by just three (3)
r May 4, 2000) one person? years.
im
med NOTE: The A: NO. A NOTE: The
iatel one-year time petition for objective of
y bar will not recall signed by imposing the
pre apply where just one person three-term
cedi the local official is in violation of limit rule is to
ng a sought to be the statutory “avoid the
reg recalled is a 25% minimum recall of a
ular mayor and the requirement as single person
elec approaching to the number accumulating
tion election is a of signatures excess power
(LG barangay supporting any over a
C, election. petition for particular
Sec. (Angobung v. recall. territorial
74) COMELEC, G.R. (Angobung v. jurisdiction as
No. 126576, COMELEC, G.R. a result of a
The March 5, 1997) No. 126576, prolonged
Suprem March 5, 1997) stay in the
e Court Q: Sec. 74 of same office”.
held that the LGC
the term provides that For a three-
recall “no recall Term of office term rule to
referred shall take of an elected apply, the
to in the place within local official local official
one- one year must have
year immediately Three (3) years fully served
time bar preceding a starting from the term and
rule regular local noon of June 30 been elected
refers to election.” following the through
the What does the election or such regular
recall term “regular date as may be election.
election local election,” provided by
and not as used in this law, except that Q: From 2004
the section, mean? of elective to 2007 and
prelimin barangay 2007 to
ary A: Referring to officials, for 2010, Naval
proceedi an election maximum of 3 had been
ng to where the consecutive elected as a
initiate office held by terms in the Board
recall. It the local same position Member of
is clear elective official (LGC, Sec. 43) the
that the sought to be Sangguniang
initiatio recalled is to The term of Panlalawigan
n of be actually office of for the
recall contested and Barangay and Second
proceedi filled by the Sangguniang District,
ng is not electorate Kabataan Province of
prohibit (Paras v. elective Camarines
ed COMELEC, G.R. officials, by Sur. On
within No. 123169, virtue of RA October 12,
POLITICAL LAW
2009, the consecutive
President terms as a Sanggunian, be defeated by,
approved R.A. member of the irrespective of the nor sacrificed for,
No. 9716, which district he had values of less than
reapportioned been elected from. equal
the legislative Allowing Naval to constitutional
districts in run as a worth.
Camarines Sur. 8 Sanggunian
out of 10 towns member for the In Naval’s case,
were taken from fourth time is the words of R.A.
the old Second violative of the No. 9716 plainly
District to form inflexible three- state that the new
the present term limit rule. Is Second District is
Third District. Julia correct? to be created, but
The present the Third District
Second District A: YES. As worded, is to be renamed.
is composed of the constitutional The rationale
the two provision fixes the behind
remaining towns, term of a local reapportionment
Gainza and elective office and is the
Milaor, merged limits an elective constitutional
with five towns official’s stay in requirement to
from the old office to no more achieve equality of
First District. In than three representation
the 2010 consecutive terms. among the
elections, Naval The “limitation” districts.The aim
once again won under this first of legislative
as among the branch of the apportionment is
members of the provision is to equalize
Sanggunian, expressed in the population and
Third District. negative—“no such voting power
He served until official shall serve among districts.
2013. In the for more than three The basis for
2013 elections, consecutive terms.” districting shall be
Naval ran anew This formulation— the number of the
and was re- no more than three inhabitants of a
elected as consecutive terms— city or a province
Member of the is a clear command and not the
Sanggunian, suggesting the number of
Third District. existence of an registered voters
Nelson Julia was inflexible rule. This therein. Naval’s
likewise a examination of the ineligibility to run,
Sanggunian wording of the by reason of
Member constitutional violation of the
candidate from provision and of the three-term limit
the Third circumstances rule, does not
District in the surrounding its undermine the
2013 elections. formulation right to equal
He filed before impresses upon us representation of
the COMELEC a the clear intent to any of the
Verified Petition make term districts in
to Deny Due limitation a high Camarines Sur.
Course or to priority With or without
Cancel COC of constitutional him, the renamed
Naval. Julia objective whose Third District,
posited that terms must be which he labels as
Naval had fully strictly construed a new set of
served for three and which cannot constituents,
LocAl GoveRNMents
would still be
represented, albeit by
another eligible
person.
In sum, there is no
compelling reason to
side with Naval. To
declare otherwise
would be to create a
dangerous precedent
unintended by the
drafters of our
Constitution and of
R.A. No. 9716.
Considering that the
one-term gap or rest
after three
consecutive elections
is a result of a
compromise among
the members of the
Constitutional
Commission, no
cavalier exemptions
or exceptions to its
application is to be
allowed. Further,
sustaining Naval’s
arguments would
practically allow him
to hold the same
office for 15 years.
(Naval v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 207851, July
8, 2014)
Term limit of
Barangay officials
The term of office of barangay officials was fixed at
three years under R.A. 9164 (19 March 2002).
Further, Sec.43 (b) provides that "no local
elective official shall serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms in the same position. The Court
interpreted thissection referring to all local
elective officials without exclusions or
exceptions. (COMELEC v. Cruz, G.R. No. 186616,
Nov. 20, 2009)
NOTE: Voluntary renunciation of the office for any

length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of service for the full
term for which the elective official concerned was
elected. (Sec 43(b), LGC; see previous discussion on
Abundo v. COMELEC, infra.)
NATIOnAl EconoMy ANd PATRIMOny
original proprietor of all lands and, as such, is
the general source of all private titles. (p. 3,
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY Agcaoili,
Goals of the National Economy
The following are the goals of the national

economy:
(1) A more equitable distribution of

opportunities, income and wealth;
(2) Sustained increase in the amount of
goods and services produced by the
nation for the benefit of the people; and
(3) An expanding productivity as the key to
raising the quality of life for all,
especially, the underprivileged. (Sec. 1,
Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)
How the State may attain the goals of the

national economy
The State shall promote industrialization and full

employment based on sound agricultural
development and agrarian reform, through
industries that make full and efficient use of
human and natural resources, and which are
competitive in both domestic and foreign
markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino
enterprises against unfair foreign competition
and trade practices. (Sec. 1, Art. XII, 1987
Constitution)
REGALIAN DOCTRINE
Regalian Doctrine
All lands of whatever classification and other

natural resources not otherwise appearing to be
clearly within private ownership belong to the
State. The State is the source of any asserted right
to ownership of land and charged with the
conservation of such patrimony. (Republic v.
Raneses, GR No. 189970, June 9, 2014; Sec. of DENR
v. Yap, GR No. 167707, October 8, 2008)
Jura Regalia
Under the concept of jura regalia, private title to

land must be traced to some grant, express or
implied, from the Spanish Crown or its
successors, the American Colonial government,
and thereafter, the Philippine Republic. Title to
land must emanate from some source for it
cannot be issue forth from nowhere.
Jura regalia simply means that the State is the

POLITICAL LAW
reaches, have been Musuan Bukidnon, as a
Property Registration Decree and Other Related Laws, held under a claim of school site for Central
2015) private ownership Mindanao University. In
by ICCs/IPs, have 2003, President Arroyo
Regalian Doctrine is embodied in the been public lands issued a Presidential
Constitution and are thus Proclamation taking
indisputably hectares from CMU’s
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, presumed to have registered lands for
petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of been held that way distribution to
potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, since before the indigenous peoples and
flora and fauna, and other natural resources are Spanish Conquest. cultural communities.
owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural [Sec. 3(l), Chapter II, CMU filed a petition to
lands, all other natural resources shall not be RA 8371] declare the proclamation
alienated. (Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) unconstitutional. Decide.
Ancestral Domain
Exception to the Regalian Doctrine A: The lands by their
All areas generally character have become
When there is an existing native title to land or belonging to inalienable from the
ownership of land by Filipinos by virtue of possession ICCs/IPs comprising moment President Garcia
under a claim of ownership since time immemorial lands, inland waters, dedicated them for CMUs
and independent of any grant from the Spanish coastal areas, and use. They have ceased to be
Crown. (Carino v. Insular Government, GR No. 2869, natural resources alienable public lands.
March 25, 1907) therein, held under a Besides, Sec. 56 of IPRA
claim of ownership, provides that property
Any land that should have been in the possession of occupied and rights within the ancestral
an occupant and of his predecessors in interest since possessed by domains already existing
time immemorial, for such possession would justify ICCs/IPs, by and/or vested upon its
the presumption that the land had never been part of themselves or effectivity shall be
the public domain or that it had been a private through their recognized and respected.
property even before the Spanish conquest. (Oh Cho ancestors, In this case, ownership over
v. Director of Lands, Gr No. L- 48321, August 31, 1946) communally or the subject lands had been
individually since vested in CMU as early as
Constitutionality of RA 8371 “Indigenous Peoples’ time immemorial, 1958. Consequently,
Rights Act” (IPRA Law) continuously to the transferring the lands in
present, except 2003 to the indigenous
The Regalian Doctrine does not negate native title to when interrupted by peoples around the area is
lands held in private ownership since time war, force majeure not in accord with IPRA.
immemorial and independent of any grant from the or displacement by (CMU v. Exec. Secretary, GR
NATIONALIST AND CITIZENSHIP force, deceit, stealth No. 184869, September 21,
REQUIREMENT PROVISIONS or as a consequence 2010)
Spanish Crown. IPRA recognizes the right of of government
ownership of Indigenous Cultural Communities or projects or any other
Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) to their ancestral voluntary dealings Filipinized activities as
domains and ancestral lands on the basis of native with government provided in Art. XII of the
title. (Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, GR No. 135385, December and/or private Constitution
6, 2000) individuals or
corporations. [Sec. 1. Co-production, joint
NOTE: The constitutionality of the law was deemed 3(a), Chapter II, RA venture, or production
upheld only because the votes were equally divided 7 8371] sharing agreement
to 7. Hence, the necessary majority was not obtained. for exploration,
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 56, Sec. 7 of the Rules Q: In 1958,
of Civil Procedure, the petition was dismissed. President Garcia
issued a
Native Title Presidential
Proclamation
Native title refers to pre-conquest rights to lands and reserving hectares
domains which, as far back as memory of lands of the
public domain in
deve ident may s e
lopm enter into . a
ent agreements b. S g
and with t r
utiliz foreign- a e
ation owned t e
(ED corporatio e m
U) of ns e
natu involving m n
ral technical or a t
reso financial y (
urce agreements “
s: only. (1987 e F
Constitutio n T
GR: n, Art. XII, t A
Filip Sec. 2) e A
ino r ”
citiz State may )
ens also i w
or directly n i
entit exploit its t t
ies natural o h
with resources
60% in either p
a
capit of two r
aliza ways: i
f
tion v
a. Sta i
own a
te n
ed t
ma a
by e
y n
Filip c
set c
ino o
up i
citiz m
its a
ens. p
ow l
a
XPN n n
: co o
i
mp r
For e
larg an s
e- y t w
scal to e h
e en c o
EDU ga h a
of ge n c
min in i t
eral the c a
s, ex a s
petr plo l c
oleu ita o
m tio a n
and n s t
othe of s r
r nat i a
min ur s c
eral al t t
oils, res a o
the ou n r
Pres rce c s
POLITICAL LAW
o wealth Se ovide for
f within the c. higher
territory: 3) percenta
t Exclusively ge; (1987
h for Filipino 4. Ce Constitut
e citizens; rt ion, Art.
(1987 ai XII, Sec.
S Constitutio n 10)
t n, Art. XII, ar 5. In the
a Sec. 2) ea grant of
t 3. Alienable lands of the s rights,
e public domain: of privilege
a. Only in s and
Filipin ve concessio
(
o st ns
L
citizen m covering
a
s may en the
acquire t: national
B not
u re economy
more se and
g than
a rv patrimon
12 ed y, State
l hectare
- fo shall give
s by r preferen
B purcha
’ Fil ce to
se, ipi qualified
l homest
a no Filipinos;
ead or cit and
a grant,
n ize (1987
or ns Constitut
lease or ion, Art.
v not en XII, Sec.
. more tit 10)
than ies 6. Franchis
D 500 e,
wi
E hectare th certificat
N s. e or any
60
R b. Private % other
corpor o form of
S ations w authoriza
e may ne tion for
c lease d the
. not by operatio
, more Fil n of a
G.R. No. than ipi public
127882, 1000 no utility;
December hectare s, only to
1, 2004). s for 25 alt Filipino
years ho citizens
2. Use renewa ug or
and ble for h entities
enjo anothe Co with
yme r 25 60%
ng
nt years; re owned
of (1987 ss by
nati Constit m Filipinos.
on’s ution, ay (1987
mar Art. XII, pr Constitut
ine
ion, franchise, investments, intention that
Art. etc., shall goods, and the lot in
XII, neither be services. While question be
Sec. exclusive, it does not purchased by
11) nor, for a encourage their him and his
period unlimited entry wife, he
NOT longer than into the country, acquired no
E: 50 it does not right whatever
Such prohibit them over the
either. In fact, it property by
years, and reliant and allows an virtue of that
subject to independent exchange on the purchase; and
amendment, national basis of equality in attempting
alteration or economy and reciprocity, to acquire a
repeal by effectively frowning only right or
Congress. All controlled by on foreign interest in
executive and Filipinos. Is the competition that land,
managing Retail Trade is unfair. vicariously
officers must Liberalization (Espina v. and
be Filipino Act of 2000 Zamora, G.R. clandestinely,
citizens. constitutional? No. 143855, he knowingly
September 21, violated the
Q: President A: YES. While 2010) Constitution;
Estrada signed Sec. 19, Art. II of the sale as to
into law RA the 1987 An alien may him was null
8762, also Constitution not acquire and void.
known as the requires the property by
Retail Trade development of virtue of a
Liberalization a self- reliant purchase made
Act of 2000. It and independent by him and his
expressly national Filipino wife
repealed R.A. economy (1994, 1998,
1180, which effectively 2002, 2009
absolutely controlled by Bar)
prohibited Filipino
foreign nationals entrepreneurs, it The
from engaging in does not impose fundamental
the retail trade a policy of law prohibits
business. R.A. Filipino the sale to aliens
8762 now allows monopoly of the of residential
them to do under economic land. Sec. 7, Art.
special environment. XII ordains that,
categories. The objective is "Save in cases of
Several to simply hereditary
members of the prohibit foreign succession, no
House of powers or private land
Representatives, interests from shall be
filed a petition maneuvering transferred or
assailing the our economic conveyed except
constitutionality policies and to individuals,
of RA 8762. They ensure that corporations, or
mainly argue Filipinos are associations
that it violates given preference qualified to
the mandate of in all areas of acquire or hold
the 1987 development. It lands of the
Constitution for does not rule out public domain."
the State to the entry of Thus, assuming
develop a self- foreign that it was his
POLITICAL LAW
He had and has no Since natural 2015 (Resolution),
capacity or resources, except these two tests
personality to agricultural were discussed by
question the resources that the Supreme Court
subsequent sale of cannot be alienated, in determining
the same property by they can be whether or not
his wife on the theory explored, Narra Nickel
that in so doing he is developed, or Mining and
merely exercising the utilized by: Development
prerogative of a Corporation Tesoro
husband in respect of 1. Direct undertaking Mining and
conjugal property. To of activities by the Development, Inc.,
sustain such a theory State and McArthur
would permit 2. Co-production, Mining, Inc.
indirect joint venture, complied with the
controversion of the or production Filipino ownership
constitutional sharing requirement, thus,
prohibition. If the agreements entitled to Mineral
property were to be with the State Production Sharing
declared conjugal, and all under Agreements
this would accord to the full control (MPSAs).
the alien husband a and
not insubstantial supervision of
interest and right the State
over land, as he (Miners
would then have a Association v.
decisive vote as to its Factoran, G.R.
transfer or No. 98332,
disposition. This is a January 16,
right that the 1995).
Constitution does not
permit him to have. NOTE: However, as
(Cheeseman v. IAC, to marine wealth,
G.R. No. 74833, only Filipino
January 21, 1991) citizens are
qualified. This is
also true of natural EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, AND
Exploration, resources in rivers, UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
development and bays, lakes and
utilization of lagoons, but with
natural resources allowance for
(2015 Bar) cooperatives (1987
Constitution, Art.
Only Filipino citizens XII, Sec. 2, pars. 2
and corporations or and 3).
associations at least
sixty percent (60%) Control Test and
of whose capital is Grandfather Rule
owned by Filipino (2015 Bar)
citizens are qualified
to take part in In Narra Nickel
exploration, Mining and
development and Development
utilization of natural Corporation v.
resources (1987 Redmont
Constitution, Art. XII, Consolidated Mines
Sec. 2). Corpoation, G.R. No.
195580, January 28,
2. The similar corporate structure and
Control Test Grandfather Rule shareholder composition of the three
Also known as the The method by which corporations;
“liberal test”; This the percentage of 3. A major Filipino shareholder within the
provides that shares Filipino equity in a corporate layering did not pay any amount
belonging to corporation is with respect to its subscription; and
corporations or computed, in cases 4. The dubious act of the foreign investor in
partnerships at least where corporate conveying its interests in the mining
60% of the capital of shareholders are corporations to another domestic
which is owned by present, by attributing corporation.
Filipino citizens shall the nationality of the
be considered of second or even NOTE: Corporate layering is valid insofar as it
Philippine nationality. subsequent tier of does not intend to circumvent the Filipino
This does not ownership to ownership requirement of the Constitution
scrutinize further the determine the (Narra Nickel Mining and Development
ownership of the nationality of the Corporation v. Redmont Consolidated Mines
Filipino corporate Corpoation, G.R. No. 195580, April 21, 2014).
shareholdings. shareholder.
Thus, to arrive at the Validity of service contract entered into by the
actual Filipino State with a foreign-owned corporation
ownership and
control in a Subject to the strict limitations in the last two
corporation, both the paragraphs of Sec. 2 Art. XII, financial and
direct and indirect technical agreements are a form of service
shareholdings in the contract. Such service contacts may be entered
corporation are into only with respect to minerals, petroleum, and
determined. other mineral oils. The grant of such service
Primary test (but Applies only contracts is subject to several safeguards, among
it may be when the 60-40 them:
combined with Filipino-foreign
the Grandfather ownership is in 1. That the service contract be crafted in
Rule) doubt or where accordance with a general law setting
there is reason to standard of uniform terms, conditions
believe that and requirements;
there is non- Ratio: To attain certain
compliance with uniformity in provisions and
the provisions of avoid the possible insertion of
the Constitution terms disadvantageous to the
on the country.
nationality
restriction. 2. President be the signatory for the
government; and
Ratio:Before an agreement is
presented to the President for
NOTE: “Doubt” - does not refer to the fact that the signature, it will have been
apparent Filipino ownership of the corporation’s vetted several times over at
equity falls below the 60% threshold. Rather, it different levels to ensure that it
refers to various indicia that the "beneficial conforms to law and can
ownership" and "control" of the corporation do withstand public scrutiny.
not in fact reside in Filipino shareholders but in
foreign stakeholders. 3. President reports the executed
agreement to Congress within 30 days.
Circumstances that compelled the application Ratio: To give that branch of
of the Grandfather Rule in Narra Nickel Mining government an opportunity to
v. Redmont Consolidated Mines
look over the agreement and
interpose timely objections, if
1. The three mining corporations had the same
100% Canadian owned foreign investor;

FRANCHISES, AUTHORITY, AND CERTIFICATES
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES
Pu Garcia; LTFRB, GR one can own the
bli any (La XPN: In case No. 115381, facilities needed
c Bugal of valid December 23, 1994) to operate a
Ut B’laan v. delegation of public utility.
ili DENR, G.R. legislative Operation of a
ty No. 127882, authority to Public Utility Delegation of
December 1, some authority to
2004). administrative No franchise, grant franchise
agencies to certificate, or any
issue other form of GR: Under the
franchises of authorization for Constitution,
certain public the operation of a Congress has the
utilities. public utility shall authority to grant
be granted except a public utility
Franchise to citizens of the franchise
requirement Philippines or to
before one corporations or
can operate a associations
public utility organized under
(1994 Bar) the laws of the
Philippines at least
The Constitution, sixty per centum of
in no uncertain whose capital is
terms, requires a owned by such
A "public operated citizens, nor shall
utility" is a businesses such franchise,
business or whose certificate, or
service services authorization be
engaged in are exclusive in
regularly essential to character or for a
supplying the general longer period than
the public public. fifty years. (Sec. 11,
with some They are Art. XII, 1987
commodity enterprises Constitution)
or service of which
public specially Thus, only Filipino
consequenc cater to the citizens or
e such as needs of corporations at
electricity, the public least 60% of whose
gas, water, and capital is Filipino
transportati conduce to owned are qualified
on, their to acquire a
telephone or comfort franchise,
telegraph and certificate, or
service. (Sec. convenienc authorized to
14, CA No. e. As such, operate a public
146; public utility.
National utility
Power services Operation v.
Corporation are Ownership of
v. CA, GR No. impressed Public Utilities
112702, with public
September interest The Constitution
26, 1997) and requires a franchise
concern. for the operation of
Public (Kilusang a public utility.
utilities are Mayo Uno However, it does
privately Labor not require a
owned and Center v. franchise before
285
franchise for utility is not bodies of entities shall
the operation of an exclusive be limited to their
a public utility. private proportionate share in
However, it property of the capital thereof, and
does not the franchisee. all the officers of such
require a Under the entities must be
franchise Constitution, citizens of the
before one can no franchisee Philippines (Bar
own the can demand examination in
facilities needed or acquire Political Law, 1989).
to operate a exclusivity in
public utility so the operation Ownership requirement
long as it does of a public
not operate utility. Thus, a 1. Advertising-
them to serve franchisee 70% of their
the public. cannot capital must
complain of be owned by
Sec. 11, Art. XII seizure or Filipino
provides that, taking of citizens [Art.
“No franchise, property XVI, Sec. 1(2)]
certificate or because of the 2. Mass Media-
any other form issuance of must be
of authorization another wholly owned
for the franchise to a by Filipino
operation of a competitor citizens [Art.
public utility (Pilipino XVI, Sec.
shall be granted Telephone 11(1)]
except to Corp. v. NRC,
citizens of the G.R. No.
Philippines or 138295,
to corporations August 28,
or associations 2003).
organized
under the laws Foreigners
of the who own
Philippines at substantial
least 60% of stockholding
whose capital is s in a
owned by such corporation,
citizens, nor engaged in
shall such the
franchise, advertising
certificate or industry,
authorization cannot sit as
be exclusive a treasurer of
character or for said
a longer period corporation
than 50
years…” (Tatad A treasurer is
v. Garcia, G.R. an executive
No. 114222, or a managing
April 6, 1995). officer. Sec.
11(2), Art. XVI
Exclusivity of a provides that
public utility the
franchise participation
of the foreign
A franchise to investors in
operate a public the governing
3. Educational institutions- 60% of their Imperium vs. Dominium
capital must be owned by Filipino
citizens [Art. XVI, Sec. 4(2)] Imperium Dominium
The power to govern The capacity of the
Interpretation of the term “capital” as used in possessed by the State State to own or
Sec. 11, Art. XII in determining compliance which is embraced in acquire properties.
with the ownership requirement sovereignty.
Refers only to shares of stock entitled to vote in

the election of directors, and only to common Classification of Lands of Public Domain
shares and not to the total outstanding capital
stock comprising both common and non-voting 1. Agricultural;
preferred shares. 2. Forest or timber;
3. Mineral lands; and
Considering that common shares have voting 4. National parks (Sec. 3, Art. XII, 1987
rights which translate to control, as opposed to Constitution)
preferred shares which usually have no voting
rights, the term "capital" in Sec. 11, Art. XII of the Conversion of Public Land to Private Land
Constitution refers only to common shares.
However, if the preferred shares also have the Before any land may be converted to alienable
right to vote in the election of directors, then the and disposable land, there must be a positive act
term "capital" shall include such preferred shares from the government. Unless and until the land is
because the right to participate in the control or released in an official proclamation, it may not
management of the corporation is exercised form part of the disposable agricultural lands of
through the right to vote in the election of the public domain. (Sunbeam v. CA, GR No. L-
directors. In short, the term "capital" in Sec. 11, 50464, January 29, 1990)
Art. XII of the Constitution refers only to shares of
stock that can vote in the election of directors There must be an express declaration by the State
(Gamboa v. Sec. of Finance, G.R. No. 176579, June that the public dominion property is no longer
28, 2011). intended for public service or the development of
the national wealth or that the property has been
NOTE: The Constitution expressly declares as converted into patrimonial. Without such express
State policy the development of an economy declaration, the property, even if classified as
“effectively controlled” by Filipinos. Consistent alienable or disposable, remains property of the
with such State policy, the Constitution explicitly public dominion, pursuant to Article 420(2), and
reserves the ownership and operation of public thus incapable of acquisition by prescription. It is
utilities to Philippine nationals, who are defined only when such alienable and disposable lands
in the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 as Filipino are expressly declared by the State to be no
citizens, or corporations or associations at least longer intended for public service or for the
60% of whose capital with voting rights belongs development of the national wealth that the
to Filipinos (Gamboa v. Sec. of Finance, ibid.). period of acquisitive prescription can begin to
run. Such declaration shall be in the form of a law
State Take-Over of Business Affected with duly enacted by Congress or a Presidential
Public Interest; Requisites Proclamation in cases where the President is duly
authorized by law. (Heirs of Mario Malabanan v.
The State may take over or direct the operation of Republic of the Philippines, GR No. 179987, April
any privately owned public utility or business 29, 2009)
affected with public interest provided that:
Purchase or grant
1. There is national emergency;
2. The public interest so requires; and Public land is acquired from the government
3. Under reasonable terms prescribed by it. either by purchase or by grant. (Oh Cho v.
(Sec. 17, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution) Director of Lands, supra)
ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER OF Prescription

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS
Public land held by personally or
a possessor, through his
UNIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS

2019G OLDENN OTES 286
predecessor h wealth. Without effect.
s-in-interest, an such declaration,
openly, d the property, even Hereditary
continuousl wi if classified as succession;
y and th alienable and Intestate
exclusively jus disposable, remains succession
for ten (10) t property of the
or thirty titl State, and thus, may This means
(30) years is e not be acquired by foreigners who
converted to 2. Ex prescription. inherit through
private tr (Malabanan v. intestate
property by ao Republic, GR No. succession. It
the mere rd 179987, April 29, does not extend
lapse of in 2009) to testate
completion ar succession for
of said y– Disposition of otherwise the
period, ipso po private lands or Constitutional
jure. The ss holding of lands prohibition will
land ipso es the public domain be for naught and
jure ceases sio meaningless. Any
to be of the n No private land alien would be
public for shall be transferred able to
domain and at or conveyed except circumvent the
becomes lea to individuals, prohibition by
private st corporations or paying money to a
property. 30 associations Philippine
(Director of ye qualified to acquire landowner in
Lands v. IAC, ar or hold lands of the exchange for a
GR No. s, public domain. devise of a piece
73002, re (Sec. 7, Art. XII, of land. (Ramirez
December ga 1987 Constitution) v. Ramirez, GR No.
29, 1986) rdl L-27952,
es Exception February 15,
Two (2) s 1982)
kinds of of 1. By
prescriptio go hereditary
n by which od succession;
Patrimonia fai 2. Former
l Property th natural-
may be or born
acquired jus citizens of
t the
1. Ord titl Philippines
ina e who has
ry – lost his
pos There must Philippine
sess be an citizenship;
ion express 3. Condomini
for declaration um units
at that the 4. Those
leas property is acquired
t 10 no longer by
yea intended Americans
rs, for public while the
in service or Parity
goo developme Right
d nt of Agreement
fait national was still in
287
Natural-born involved will, Siu Si Temple, GR No. L- agreement of both
citizens nevertheless, 6776, May 21, 1955) lessor and lessee.
who be not (Sec. 1, PD 471)
lost applicable. Aliens and alien-
their (Sec. 113, BP owned corporations Foreign nationals can
68; Republic v. may lease private own condominium
Any natural- IAC, GR No. lands units
born citizen of 75042,
the Philippines November 29, The maximum period They can own
who has lost his 1988) allowable for the Philippine real estate
Philippine duration of leases of through the purchase
citizenship and But religious private lands to aliens of condominium
who has the associations or alien-owned units or townhouses
legal capacity to controlled by corporations, constituted under
enter into a non- Filipinos associations, or the Condominium
contract under cannot own entities not qualified to principle with
Philippine laws lands acquire private lands Condominium
may be a in the Philippines shall Certificates of Title as
transferee of a The be twenty-five (25) long as the alien
private land up Constitution years, renewable for interest in such
to a maximum makes no another period of corporation does
area of one exception in twenty-five (25) years not
thousand favor of upon mutual
square meters, religious
in the case of associations exceed the limits Philippines shall be limited to
urban land, or restricting the imposed by existing Filipino citizens. (Sec. 14, Art.
one hectare in acquisition of laws. (Sec. 5, RA 4726) XII, 1987 Constitution)
the case of rural public
land, to be used agricultural It expressly allows XPN: Save in cases prescribed
by him as his lands and foreigners to acquire by law.
residence. (Sec. other natural condominium units and
2, BP 185) resources to shares in condominium Reciprocity Clause
corporations corporations up to not
Religious or more than 40% of the A foreigner may practice
Corporations can associations at total and outstanding profession in the Philippines if
own lands least sixty per capital stock of a there is a reciprocity provision
centum of the Filipino-owned or provided in laws regulating a
A corporation capital of controlled corporation. profession.
sole by the which is As long as the 60% of
nature of its owned by the members of this Regulation of the Practice of
incorporation is such citizens. Condominium Medicine
vested with the To permit Corporation are
right to religious Filipino, the remaining It is long established rule that
purchase and associations members can be a license to practice medicine
hold real estate controlled by foreigners. (Jacobus is a privilege or franchise
property. It non-Filipinos Bernhard Hulst v. PR granted by the government.
need not to acquire Builders, Inc., GR No. However, the power to
therefore be agricultural 156364, September 25, regulate the exercise of a
treated as an lands would 2008) profession or pursuit of an
ordinary be to drive the occupation cannot be
private opening PRACTICE OF exercised by the State or its
corporation wedge to PROFESSIONS agents in an arbitrary,
because revive alien despotic, or oppressive
whether or not religious land Practice of Profession manner. (PRC v. De Guzman,
it be so treated holdings in in the Philippines GR No. 144681, June 21, 2004)
as such, the this country.
Constitutional (Register of GR: The practice of all Q: Graduates of Fatima
provision Deeds v. Ung professions in the College of Medicine passed
the Physician Licensure

Exam in 1993 physician, s governing
conducted by physicia pursuant citizens thereof.
the Board of n’s oath to the (Board of
Medicine. The and to Medical Medicine v.
Board observed enter Act of Yasuyuki Ota, GR
that the grades their 1959. No. 166097, July
of 79 successful names in (PRC v. De 14, 2008; Sec. 9,
examinees from the rolls Guzman, RA No.
the said college of the GR No. 2382 “Medical Act of 1959”)
in the most PRC. 144681,
difficult Decide. June 21, Q: Yasuyuki Ota,
subjects were 2004) a Japanese
unusually and A: I will national
exceptionally dismiss Require residing in the
high. The PRC the ment for Philippines,
asked the NBI to special Foreigne graduated from
investigate the civil rs to Bicol Christian
irregularity. action for Practice College of
The NBI found mandam of Medicine with a
that the us. The Medicine degree of
questionable Board of in the Doctor of
passing rate of Medicine Philippin Medicine. He
Fatima shall sign es filed an
examinees and issue application to
leads to the certificat A foreign take the
conclusion that es of citizen is medical board
they gained registrati required examinations in
early access to on to to submit order to obtain
the test those competen a license. He
questions. The who have t and submitted the
Board issued a satisfacto conclusiv Medical
resolution rily e Practitioners
withholding the complied document Law of Japan
registration as with the ary duly
physicians of all requirem evidence, authenticated
the examinees ents of confirmed by the Consul
from Fatima the by the General of the
College of Board. Departme Philippine
Medicine. The Thus, nt of Embassy to
examinees filed when an Foreign Japan. After
a special civil examinee Affairs passing the
action for satisfies (DFA), board exams,
mandamus the showing the Board of
against the requirem that his Medicine
Board of ents for countrys denied Ota’s
Medicine the grant existing request for a
praying that of his laws license to
they be ordered physician permit practice
to administer ’s license, citizens of medicine in the
the the Board the Philippines on
is obliged Philippine the ground that
to s to no reciprocity
administ practice can be found in
er to him medicine the law of Japan
his oath under the as there are no
and same Filipinos who
register rules and can possibly
him as a regulation practice there.
289
Ota ng rules and regulations
file responde
d a nt to governing citizens Philippine
pet prove thereof. (Board of citizenship under
itio first that Medicine v. RA No. 9225,
n a Filipino Yasuyuki Ota, GR remains to be a
for has No. 166097, July 14, member of the
ma already 2008; Sec. 9, RA No. Philippine Bar.
nda been 2382 “Medical Act However, the
mu granted of 1959”) right to resume
s license the practice of
aga and is Practice of Law law is not
inst actually automatic. A
the practicin Only Filipino person who
Boa g therein citizens may be intends to
rd. unduly admitted to the practice his
Dec expands Philippine bar and profession in the
ide. the therefore, practice Philippines must
requirem law. (Rule 138, apply with the
A: I ents Rules of Court) proper authority
will provided for license or
gra for under Filipino permit to engage
nt the citizenship is a in such practice.
the Medical continuing (Petition for Leave
ma Act. It requirement for to Resume
nda merely practice of law Practice of Law,
mu requires Benjamin
s. It a foreign Filipino citizenship Dacanay, BM No.
is citizen to is a requirement to 1678, December
eno submit the bar and is, in 17, 2007)
ugh competen fact, a continuing
that t and requirement for the ORGANIZATION AN
the conclusiv practice of law. The CORPORATIONS, PR
law e loss thereof means
s in documen termination of the Proscription on
the tary petitioner’s Congress to
fore evidence, membership in the Create Private
ign confirme bar; ipso jure the Corporations
cou d by the privilege to engage
ntr Departm in the practice of The congress
y ent of law. (In Re: Petition shall not, except
per Foreign to Re-Acquire the by general law,
mit Affairs Privilege to Practice provide for the
a (DFA), Law in the formation,
Fili showing Philippines, organization, or
pin that his Epifanio regulation of
o to countrys B. Muneses, BM No. private
get existing 2112, July 24, 2012) corporations.
lice laws (Sec. 16, Art. XII,
nse permit Reacquisition of 1987
and citizens Filipino Constitution)
pra of the Citizenship to
ctic Philippin Practice Law Rationale for the
e es to proscription
ther practice A Filipino lawyer
ein. medicine who becomes a The proscription
Req under the citizen of another is to prevent the
uiri same country and later pressure of
re-acquires his special interests

upon the particular business or intention to protect
law-making favor certain trade, manufacture a local industries from
body in the groups, to the particular article, or foreign competition
creation of prejudice of control the sale of a at the expense of the
corporation others or to particular commodity. consuming public.
s or in the the prejudice (Agan, Jr. v. PIATCO,
regulation of of the G.R. No. 155001, May 5, Essence of the
the same. To interests of 2003) provision
permit the the country.
law-making (Philippine State policy regarding
body by Society for the monopolies
special law Prevention of
to provide Cruelty to The State shall
for the Animals v. regulate or prohibit
organization COA, GR No. monopolies when the
, formation, 169752, public interest so
or September 25, requires. No
regulation of 2007) combination in
private restraint of trade or
corporation Creation of unfair competition
s would be GOCCs shall be allowed. (1987
in effect to Constitution, Art. XII,
offer to it GOCC may be Sec. 16)
the created or
temptation established by Test on whether there
in many special is unlawful
cases to charters in the machination or
interest of the combination in
common good restraint of trade
and subject to
the test of Whether under the
economic particular
viability. (Sec. circumstances of the
17, Art. XII, case and the nature of
1987 the particular contract
Constitution) involved, such contract
is, or is not, against
NOTE: See public policy. (Avon v.
extensive Luna, G.R. No. 153674,
discussion of Dec. 20, 2006)
GOCCs under
Public NOTE: The phrase
Corporations. “unfair foreign
MONOPOLIES, RESTRAINT OF TRADE, AND

Monopoly UNFAIR COMPETITION
competition and trade
A privilege or practices” is not to be
peculiar understood in a
advantage limited legal and
vested in one technical sense, but in
or more the sense of anything
persons or that is harmful to
companies, Philippine enterprises.
consisting in At the same time,
the exclusive however, the intention
right (or is not to protect local
power) to inefficiency. Nor is the
carry on a
291
Sec. 19 is anti-trust in history and spirit. Only
competition which is fair can release the creative
forces of the market. Competition is thus the
underlying principle of Section 19, Article XII.
The objective of anti-trust law is ‘to assure a

competitive economy based upon the belief that
through competition, producers will strive to
satisfy consumer wants at the lowest price with
the sacrifice of the fewest resources. Additionally,
there is reliance upon “the operation of the
‘market’ system (free enterprise) to decide what
shall be produced, how resources shall be
allocated in the production process, and to whom
various products will be distributed. The market
system relies on the consumer to decide what and
how much shall be produced, and on competition,
among producers who will manufacture it.
(Energy Regulatory Board v. CA G.R. No. 113079,
April 20, 2001)
Regulation of monopolies
Monopolies are not per se prohibited by the

Constitution. It may be permitted to exist to aid
the government in carrying on an enterprise or to
aid in the interest of the public. However, because
monopolies are subject to abuses that can inflict
severe prejudice to the public, they are subjected
to a higher level of State regulation than an
ordinary business undertaking. (Agan, Jr. v.
PIATCO, G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003)
Allowance of contracts requiring exclusivity
Contracts requiring exclusivity are not per se void.

Each contract must be viewed vis-à-vis all the
circumstances surrounding such agreement in
deciding whether a restrictive practice should be
prohibited as imposing an unreasonable restraint
on competition. (Avon v. Luna, G.R. No. 153674,
December 20, 2006)
Free enterprise clause vs. Police Power of the

State
Although the Constitution enshrines free

enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to
the Government the power to intervene
whenever necessary for the promotion of the
general welfare, as reflected in Secs. 6 and 19 of
Art. XII. (Assoc. of Phil. Coconut Desiccators v. Phil.
Coconut Authority, G.R. No. 110526, February 10,
1998)
SocIAl JUSTICe AnD HUMAn RIGHts
4. Urban land reform and Housing
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Constitutional mandate
Congress shall give highest priority to the

enactment of measures that protect and enhance
the right of all people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities and
remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing
wealth and political power for the common good.
(Sec. 1, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)
The promotion of social justice shall include the

commitment to create economic opportunities
based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
(Sec. 2, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution)
CONCEPT
Social justice
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 rowers
underlying the existence of all governments on
the time-honored principle of salus populi est
suprema lex. (Calalang vs. Williams, G.R. No.
47800, December 2, 1940)
Social justice does not champion division of

property or equality of economic status; what it
and the Constitution do guaranty are equality of
opportunity, equality of political rights, equality
before the law, equality between values given and
received on the basis of efforts exerted in their
production. (Guido v. Rural Progress
Administration, G.R. No. L-2089, October 31, 1949)
Aspects of human life covered by Article XIII
1. Social justice and human rights

2. Labor
3. Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform
POLITICAL LAW
and lawful means. balancing the rights of the
5. Health landowner and the tenant
6. Women Agrarian Reform and by implementing the
7. Role and rights of people’s organization doctrine that social justice
8. Human rights Refers to the was not meant to
redistribution of perpetrate an injustice
Factors which must be weighed in regulating the lands, regardless of against the landowner.
relations between workers and employers crops or fruits (Delfino v. Anasao, G.R. No.
produced, to 197486, September 10,
1. The right of labor to its just share in the farmers and regular 2014)
fruits of production. farmworkers who
2. The right of enterprises to reasonable are landless, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND
returns of investments, and to expansion and irrespective of CULTURAL RIGHTS
growth. [1987 Constitution, Art XIII, Sec. 3, tenurial
par. (4)] arrangement, to Economic, social and
include the totality cultural rights (ESCR)
Provisions of the 1987 Constitution on women of factors and
support services Economic, social and
1. The State shall equally protect the life of the designed to lift the cultural rights are those
mother and the life of the unborn from economic status of human rights relating to
conception. (1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. the beneficiaries and the workplace, social
12) all other security, family life,
2. The State recognizes the role of women in arrangements participation in cultural
nation-building and shall ensure the alternative to the life, and access to housing,
fundamental equality before the law of physical food, water, health care
women and men. (1987 Constitution, Art. II, redistribution of and education. (Sarmiento,
Sec. 14) lands, such as Human Rights Law/Human
3. The State shall protect working women by production or profit- Rights Culture, 2013)
providing safe and healthful working sharing, labor ESCR is interlinked with
conditions, taking into account their administration, and civil and political rights
maternal functions, and such faculties and the distribution of
opportunities that will enhance their welfare shares of stocks, Economic, social and
and enable them to realize their full potential which will allow cultural rights are part of
in the service of the nation. (1987 beneficiaries to the body of human rights
Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 14) receive a just share law. They are also often
of the fruits of the referred to as second
Consultation requirement before urban and rural lands they work. generation human rights.
dwellers can be relocated [R.A. 6657, These rights are deeply
Comprehensive intertwined with civil and
The urban and rural dwellers and the communities Agrarian Reform political rights, which are
where they are to be relocated must be consulted. Law of 1988, Sec. first generation rights.
Otherwise, there shall be no resettlement. [1987 3(a)] (Karel Vasak, Human
Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 10 (20)] Rights, 1977)
Right of Retention
People’s organizations under Agrarian For example, the right to
Reform speak freely means little
People’s organizations are bona fide associations of without a basic education,
citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the The right of the right to vote means
public interest and with identifiable leadership, retention is a little if you are
membership and structure. [Art. XIII, Sec. 15 (2), 1987 constitutionally suffering from
Constitution] guaranteed right, starvation. Similarly, the
which is subject to right to work means little if
The State shall respect the role of independent qualification by the you are not allowed to
people’s organizations to enable the people to pursue legislature. It serves meet and assemble in
and protect, within the democratic framework, their to mitigate the groups to discuss work
legitimate and collective effects of conditions.
compulsory land
interests and aspirations through peaceful acquisition by
c rights were progre actions that
already ssively States must
What ESCR includes recognized the full take, such as
under the realizat the adoption
Economi “Universal ion of of legislation
c, social Declaration on econo or the
and Human mic, promotion of
cultural Rights.” social these rights
rights and in public
include NOTE: It should cultura policies.
the be noted that l rights. (Office of the
rights to various The United
adequate national laws Covena Nations High
food, to and nt also Commissioner
adequate international require for Human
housing, treaties had s States Rights,
to already codified to Frequently
educatio many of the guaran Asked
n, to human rights tee the Questions on
health, we now call enjoym Economic,
to social economic, ent of Social and
security, social and econo Cultural
to take cultural rights mic, Rights)
part in prior to the social
cultural adoption of the and Q: Do
life, to Universal cultura economic,
water Declaration of l rights social and
and Human Rights withou cultural
sanitatio in 1948. t rights make
n, and to discrim people
work. Obligations of ination dependent
States on and to on welfare?
Source of ESCR economic, ensure
social and the A: NO. One of
The cultural rights equal the principal
primary right of objectives of
internati The obligations men human rights
onal of States in and law is to
legal relation to women empower
source of economic, to the individuals so
economi social and enjoym that they
c, social cultural rights ent of have the
and are expressed these capacity and
cultural differently from rights. the freedom
rights is treaty to treaty. Other to live a life in
the The treatie dignity.
“Interna International s or economic,
tional Covenant on constit social and
Covenan Economic, utions cultural
t on Social and word rights require
Economi Cultural Rights obligati much more
c, Social requires States ons than the
and “to take steps” differe provision of
Cultural to the ntly social
Rights” maximum of and assistance,
but few their available even including the
socio- resources to include dismantling
economi achieve specific of social
POLITICAL LAW
barriers that is not, in the Constitution
obstruct the full strict sense, a and the (CHR Employees
participation of constitutional Administrative Association vs.
everyone in commission. Code of 1987 CHR, G.R. No.
economic and Article IX of the shall be limited 155336 July 21,
social life. 1987 only to the 2006)
Constitution, automatic and
plainly entitled regular release P
"Constitutional of its approved
COMMISSION ON Commissions," annual o
HUMAN RIGHTS identifies only appropriations.
the Civil Service w
Commission, the The 1987
Commission on Constitution e
Commission on
Human Rights Elections, and extends to
the Commission respondent a r
(CHR)
on Audit. The certain degree
mandate for the of fiscal s
It is an
independent creation of the autonomy
National Human respondent is through the
Rights Institution found in Section privilege of
17 of Article XIII having its a
(NHRI) created
under the 1987 of the 1987 approved
Constitution on annual n
Philippine
Constitution, Human Rights. appropriations
(CHR Employees released d
established on 05
May 1987 by Association vs. automatically
virtue of CHR, G.R. No. and regularly.
Executive Order 155336 July 21, However, it
2006) The CHR, withholds from f
No. 163.
although respondent
admittedly a fiscal autonomy, u
Mandate of CHR
constitutional in its broad or
creation is, extensive sense, n
The Commission
is mandated to nonetheless, not as granted to
included in the the Judiciary, c
conduct
investigations on genus of offices constitutional
accorded fiscal commissions, t
human rights
violations against autonomy by and the Office of
either the i
marginalized and
vulnerable sectors constitutional Ombudsman.
or legislative o
of the society,
involving civil and fiat. (CHR
Employees’ n
political rights.
Association vs.
CHR, G.R. No. s
Q: If CHR is
created by the 155336,
1987 November 25,
Constitution, is it 2004)
a constitutional o
commission? Fiscal
autonomy of f
A: NO. The CHR is limited
creation of
respondent may Fiscal autonomy
be granted to the C
constitutionally respondent by
mandated, but it the 1987 H
R political rights. To (CHR) to stop the Mayor Cruz
investigate is not to Mayor's move. The caused the
In adjudicate or CHR then issued demolition and
adjudge. The legal an order to desist removal of the
ve meaning of against Mayor structures.
“investigate” is Cruz with warning Accordingly, the
sti essentially to follow that he would be CHR cited him
up step by step by held in contempt for contempt. Is
ga patient inquiry or should he fail to the CHR
observation, to comply with the empowered to
to trace or track; to desistance order. declare Mayor
search into; to When the allotted Cruz in
ry examine and time lapsed,
inquire into with
po care and accuracy; contempt? Does it
to find out by have contempt Absence of compulsory
we careful inquisition; powers at all? powers
examination; the
rs taking of evidence; A: NO. CHR does not It may not issue writs of
a legal inquiry. In possess adjudicative injunction or restraining
The CHR has the the legal sense, functions and orders against supposed
power to investigate “adjudicate” means therefore, on its violators of human rights to
all forms of human to settle in the own, is not compel them to cease and
rights violations exercise of judicial empowered to desist from continuing their
involving civil and authority, to declare mayor in acts complained of. (Export
political rights and determine finally contempt for issuing Processing Zone Authority v.
monitor the and “adjudge” the “order to desist”. CHR, GR No. 101476, April
compliance by the means to pass on However, under the 14, 1992)
government with judicially, to decide, 1987 Constitution, Regarding its contempt
international treaty settle or decree, or the CHR is powers, the CHR is
obligations on human to sentence or constitutionally constitutionally authorized
rights. (Sec. 18, Art. condemn. (Cariño v. authorized, in the to "adopt its operational
XIII, 1987 CHR, G.R. No. 96681, exercise of its guidelines and rules of
Constitution) Dec. 2, 1991) investigative procedure, and cite for
functions, to "adopt contempt for violations
CHR cannot prosecute Q: Informal its operational thereof in accordance with
settlers and guidelines and rules the Rules of Court." That
In essence, the vendors have put of procedure and power to cite for contempt,
Commission’s power up structures in an cite for contempt for however, should be
is only investigative. area intended for violations thereof in understood to apply only to
It has no a People's Park, accordance with the violations of its adopted
prosecutorial power. which are Rules of Court." operational guidelines and
For prosecution, it impeding the flow Accordingly, the rules of procedure essential
must rely on the of traffic in the CHR, in the course of to carry out its
executive adjoining an investigation, investigatorial powers.
department. highway. Mayor may only cite or hold (Simon, Jr. v. CHR, G.R.
Cruz gave notice any person in No.100150, January 5,
CHR has no for the structures contempt and 1994)
adjudicatory powers to be removed, impose the
and the area appropriate Q: In order to implement
The Constitution vacated within a penalties in a big government flood
clearly and month, or else, accordance with the control project, the
categorically grants to face demolition procedure and Department of Public
the Commission the and ejectment. sanctions provided Works and Highways
power to investigate The occupants for in the Rules of (DPWH) and a local
all forms of human filed a case with Court. (Cariño v. government unit (LGU)
rights violations the Commission CHR, G.R. No. 96681, removed squatters from
involving civil and on Human Rights Dec. 2, 1991) the bank of a river and
POLITICAL LAW
certain esteros for
relocation to A: The position
another place. Their of the
shanties were Department of
demolished. The Public Works
Commission on and Highways
Human Rights (CHR) and of the local
conducted an government
investigation and unit is correct.
issued an order for As held in
the DPWH and the Export
LGU to cease and Processing Zone
desist from effecting Authority v.
the removal of the Commission on
squatters on the Human Rights,
ground that the 208 SCRA 125
human rights of the (1992), no
squatters were being provision in
violated. The DPWH the
and the LGU objected Constitution or
to the order of the any law confers
CHR. on the
Commission on
Resolve which Human Rights
position is correct. jurisdiction to
Reasons. issue
temporary
restraining
orders or writs
of preliminary
injunction. The
Commission on
Human Rights
has no judicial
power. Its
powers are
merely
investigatory.
EDUCAtIOn, ScIence, TecHnoloGY, ARTs, CUltURE AnD SPORTs
EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, ACADEMIC FREEDOM
CULTURE AND SPORTS
Arts and Culture
Arts and letters shall enjoy the patronage of the

State. The State shall conserve, promote, and
popularize the nation’s historical and cultural
heritage and resources, as well as artistic
creations. (Sec. 15, Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution)
All the country’s artistic and historic wealth
constitutes the cultural treasure of the nation and
shall be under the protection of the State which
may regulate its disposition. (Sec. 16, Art. XIV,
1987 Constitution)
Q: DMCI Project Developers, Inc. (DMCI-PDI)

acquired a huge lot in the City of Manila for
the construction of the Torre de Manila
condominium project, a 49-storey building
looming at the back of the Rizal Monument in
Luneta Park. The Knights of Rizal (KoR) filed a
Petition for Injunction against the
construction, arguing that it will cause the
desecration of the Rizal Monument, which, as
a National Treasure, is entitled to full
protection of the law. Is the KoR correct?
A: NO. There is no law prohibiting the

construction of Torre de Manila. Section 15,
Article XIV of the Constitution is not self-
executory, Congress passed laws dealing with the
preservation and conservation of our cultural
heritage, such as the National Cultural Heritage
Act of 2009, which empowers the National
Commission for Culture and the Arts (NCCA) and
other cultural agencies to issue a cease and desist
order "when the physical integrity of the national
cultural treasures or important cultural
properties [is] found to be in danger of
destruction or significant alteration from its
original state. This law declares that the State
should protect the "physical integrity" of the
heritage property or building if there is "danger
of destruction or significant alteration from its
original state." Physical integrity refers to the
structure itself – how strong and sound the
structure is. The same law does not mention that
another project, building, or property, not itself a
heritage property or building, may be the subject
of a cease and desist order when it adversely
affects the background view, vista, or sightline of
a heritage property or building. Thus, the law
cannot apply to the Torre de Manila
condominium project. (Knights of Rizal v. DMCI
Homes, G.R. No. 213948, April 25, 2017)
POLITICAL LAW
Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions adequate performance of his other
of higher learning. (Sec. 5 (2), Art. XIV, 1987 academic duties
Constitution) b. Freedom in the classroom in
discussing his subject less
Academic freedom of institutions of higher learning is controversial matters which bear no
a freedom granted to “institutions of higher learning” relation to the subject
which is thus given a “wide sphere of authority c. Freedom from institutional
certainly extending to the choice of students.” If such censorship or discipline, limited by
institution of higher learning can decide who can and his special position in the community
who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine
on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of 3. From the standpoint of the student – Right
being its graduates. Thus, a university can validly to enjoy in school the guarantee of the
revoke a degree or honor it has conferred to a Bill of Rights. (Non v. Dames, G.R. No.
student after graduation after finding that such 89317, May 20, 1990)
degree or honor was obtained through fraud. (Garcia
v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Freedoms afforded to educational institutions
Theology, relating to its right to determine for itself on
G.R. No. L-40779, November 28, 1975) academic grounds
Aspects of Academic Freedom 1. Who may teach;

2. What may be taught;
1. From the standpoint of the educational 3. How shall it be taught; and
institution – To provide that atmosphere 4. Who may be admitted to study. (Miriam
which is most conducive to speculation, College Foundation v. CA, G.R. No. 127930,
experimentation and creation; December 15, 2000)
2. From the standpoint of the faculty –
a. Freedom in research and in the Limitations on academic freedom
publication of the results, subject to the
1. Police power of the State expelling the students?

2. Social Interest of the community
A: NO. It is true that schools have the power to instill discipline
This freedom of a university does not terminate in their students as subsumed in their academic freedom. This
upon the “graduation” of a student, for it is power does not give them the untrammeled discretion to
precisely the “graduation” of such a student that impose a penalty which is not commensurate with the gravity of
is in question. An institution of higher learning the misdeed. If the concept of proportionality between the
cannot be powerless if it discovers that an offense committed and the sanction imposed is not followed, an
academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully element of arbitrariness intrudes. Thus, the penalty of expulsion
deserved. The pursuit of academic excellence is imposed by DLSU on Aguilar, et al. is disproportionate to their
the university’s concern. It should be empowered, deeds. (DLSU v. CA, G.R. No. 127980, December 19, 2007)
as an act of self-defense, to take measures to
protect itself from serious threats to its integrity. Q: The counsel of the losing party in the case of Vinuya, et
(UP Board of Regents v. CA, G.R. No. 134625, Aug. al. v. Exec. Sec filed a Supplemental Motion for
31, 1999) Reconsideration, in the said Decision, they posited their
charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds for
Q: Juan delos Santos, et al., students of De La reconsideration of the decision. A statement by the faculty
Salle University (DLSU) and College of Saint of UP Law on the allegations of plagiarism and
Benilde are members of the “Domingo Lux misrepresentation in the SC entitled “Restoring Integrity”
Fraternity”. They lodged a complaint with the was submitted by the UP professors. They expressed
Discipline Board of DLSU charging Alvin dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on
Aguilar, et al. of Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity how he cited the primary sources of the quoted portions
with “direct assault” because of their and yet arrived
involvement in an offensive action causing
injuries to the complainants, which were the
result of a fraternity war. The DLSU-CSB Joint
Discipline Board found Aguilar et al. guilty
and were meted the penalty of automatic
expulsion. Was DLSU within its rights in
EDUCAtIOn, ScIence, TecHnoloGY, ARTs, CUltURE AnD SPORTs
at a contrary conclusion to those The qualifications of teaching and non-teaching
of the authors of the articles personnel of private schools, as well as the causes
supposedly plagiarized. Beyond for the termination of their employment, are an
this, however, the statement integral aspect of the educational system of
bore certain remarks which raise private schools. It is thus within the authority of
concern for the Court. It reads: the Secretary of Education to issue a rule, which
“An extraordinary act of injustice provides for the dismissal of teaching and non-
has again been committed teaching personnel of private schools based on
against the brave Filipinas who their incompetence, inefficiency, or some other
had suffered abuse during a time disqualification. (Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College
of war.” Westgrove, G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015)
Thus, the Court, in a Show Cause Philippine Military Academy’s (PMA)

Resolution, directed Dean authority to impose disciplinary measures
Leonen, and several other
lawyers from UP Law to show
cause, why they should not be
disciplined as members of the
Bar for violation of Canons 1, 11
and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05
of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Does the Show Cause Resolution

violate respondents’ academic
freedom as law professors?
A: NO. It is not contested that

respondents (UP Law professors)
are, by law and jurisprudence,
guaranteed academic freedom and
indisputably, they are free to
determine what they will teach
their students and how they will
teach. As pointed out, there is
nothing in the Show Cause
Resolution that dictates upon
respondents the subject matter
they can teach and the manner of
their instruction. Moreover, it is not
inconsistent with the principle of
academic freedom for this Court to
subject lawyers who teach law to
disciplinary action for
contumacious conduct and speech,
coupled with undue intervention in
favor of a party in a pending case,
without observing proper
procedure, even if purportedly
done in their capacity as teachers.
(RE: Letter of the UP Law Faculty,
A.M. No. 10-10-4- SC, March 8, 2011)
Regulatory power of the

Education Secretary as to
teaching and non-teaching
personnel of private schools
PMA may impose disciplinary measures and
punishment, as it deems fit and consistent with
the peculiar needs of the Academy. Even without
express provision of a law, the PMA has
regulatory authority to administratively dismiss
erring cadets. As an academic institution, the PMA
has the inherent right to promulgate reasonable
norms, rules and regulations that it may deem
necessary for the maintenance of school
discipline, which is specifically mandated by Sec.
3 (2), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution. The
PMA has the freedom on who to admit (and,
conversely, to expel) given the high degree of
discipline and honor expected from its students
who are to form part of the AFP. The schools’
power to instill discipline in their students is
subsumed in their academic freedom and that
“the establishment of rules governing university-
student relations, particularly those pertaining to
student discipline, may be regarded as vital, not
merely to the smooth and efficient operation of
the institution, but to its very survival. The
dismissal of Cudia from the PMA due to being 2
minutes late for a class was affirmed. (Cudia v.
PMA, G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015)
It must be borne in mind that schools are

established, not merely to develop the intellect
and skills of the studentry, but to inculcate lofty
values, ideals and attitudes of the total man.
Under the rubric of "right to education," students
have a concomitant duty to learn under the rules
laid down by the school. Hence, as the primary
training and educational institution of the AFP,
the PMA certainly has the right to invoke
academic freedom in the enforcement of its
internal rules and regulations, which are the
Honor Code and the Honor System. The Honor
Code is a set of basic and fundamental ethical and
moral principle. It is the minimum standard for
cadet behavior and serves as the guiding spirit
behind each cadet's action. Throughout a cadet's
stay in the PMA, he or she is absolutely bound
thereto. (ibid.)
the State. (Sec. 2, Art. XV, 1987 Constitution)
THE FAMILY
Duty of the family
Policy statement
The family has the duty to care for its elderly members but the
The State recognizes the Filipino family as the State may also do so through just programs of social security.
foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall (Sec. 4, Art. XV, 1987 Constitution)
strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its
total development. (Sec. 1, Art. XV, 1987 RIGHTS
Constitution)
Obligation of the state
Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the
foundation of the family and shall be protected by
The State shall defend:
accordance with their religious convictions and
(1) The right of spouses to found a family in the demands of responsible parenthood; and (b)
accordance with their religious the right of families or family associations to
convictions and the demands of participate in the planning and implementation of
responsible parenthood; policies and programs that affect them. The RH
(2) The right of children to assistance, Law cannot infringe upon this mutual decision-
including proper care and nutrition, and making and endanger the institutions of marriage
special protection from all forms of and the family. (Imbong vs. Ochoa, GR No. 204819,
neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and April 8, 2014)
other conditions prejudicial to their
development; Curfew ordinances do not violate the right of
(3) The right of the family to a family living parents to rear their children
wage and income; and
(4) The right of families or family While parents have the primary role in child-
associations to participate in the rearing, it should be stressed that “when actions
planning and implementation of policies concerning the child have a relation to the public
and programs that affect them. (Sec. 3, welfare or the well•being of the child, the State
Art. XV, 1987 Constitution) may act to promote these legitimate interests.” As
our Constitution itself provides, the State is
RH law violates the Sec. 3, Art. XV of the mandated to support parents in the exercise of
Constitution these rights and duties. State authority is
therefore, not exclusive of, but rather,
Sec. 23(a)(2)(i) of the Reproductive Health Law, complementary to parental supervision. As
which permits RH procedures even with only the parens patriae, the State has the inherent right
consent of the spouse undergoing the procedure, and duty to aid parents in the moral development
disregarding spousal consent, intrudes into of their children. It should be emphasized that the
marital privacy and autonomy, and goes against Curfew Ordinances apply only when the minors
the constitutional safeguards for the family as the are not — whether actually or constructively —
basic social institution. It particularly violates Sec. accompanied by their parents. The only aspect of
3, Art. XV, which mandates the State to defend (a) parenting that the Curfew Ordinances affects is
the right of spouses to found a family in the parents’ prerogative to allow minors to
remain in public places without parental
accompaniment during the curfew hours. In this
respect, the ordinances neither dictate an overall
plan of discipline for the parents to apply to their
minors nor force parents to abdicate their
authority to influence or control their minors’
activities. (SPARK vs. Quezon City, GR 225442,
August 8, 2017, PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE)
POLITICAL LAW
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION Tests to determine whether a proposed change
is an amendment or a revision
Amendment vs. Revision
1. Quantitative test – Asks whether the
BASIS AMENDMENT REVISION proposed change is so extensive in its
provisions as to change directly the
An isolated or A revamp or
‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by
piecemeal rewriting of
the deletion or alteration of numerous
change by the whole
existing provisions.
adding, instrument,
deleting, or altering the
Definition 2. Qualitative test – Asks whether the change
reducing substantial
will accomplish such far reaching changes in
without entirety of the
the nature of our basic governmental plan as
altering the Constitution.
to amount to a revision. (Lambino v.
basic principles
Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006)
involved.
PROCEDURE TO AMEND OR REVISE THE CONSTITUTION
BASIS CONSTITUENT CONSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE

ASSEMBLY (ConAss) CONVENTION (ConCon)
How proposed By Congress, 1. By Congress, upon a vote By the people, upon a petition
acting as of 2/3 of ALL its members thru a plebiscite (at least 12%
Constituent (to call for a ConCon); OR of the TOTAL number of
Assembly upon 2. By Congress, upon a registered voters, of which
a vote of ¾ of majority vote of ALL its every legislative district must
ALL its members to submit to the be represented by 3% of the
members Electorate the question of registered voters therein
(2014 Bar) calling a ConCon (1987 Constitution, Art. XVII,
(+Plebiscite) (1987 Sec. 2) (+Full text of the
Constitution, Art. XVII, Sec. 3) proposed amendments
attached in the petition)
NOTE: No amendment shall be
NOTE: Although the law is authorized more than once
NOTE: Although the silent on whether the voting every five years thereafter.
law is silent on is done separately or jointly,
whether the voting is the prevailing view is for
done separately or separate voting as the
jointly, the prevailing Congress is bicameral.
view is for separate
voting as the
Congress is
bicameral.
Coverage Amendment or Revision Amendment ONLY
Legal 1. Manner of Proposal; or Propositions can be declared
Questions 2. Manner of calling ConCon null and void for violation of
(Subject - This is a case where Congress, acting as a ConAss, the Constitution.
to calls for a ConCon but does not provide details for the
Judicial calling of such ConCon, and Congress, in exercising its
Review) ordinary legislative power, may supply such details.
Political Substance of
Questions the proposal.
Whether ConAss or ConCon should initiate the
amendment or revision.
Limits No amendment be authorized
oftener than once every 5
years (1987 Constitution, Art.
XVII, Sec. 2).
Ratification by the people through a proposition

sent to Congress or the local legislative
Amendments or revisions to the Constitution by body for action.
Constituent Assembly or Constitutional
Convention shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later
than 90 days after the approval of such
amendment or revision.
Amendments by People’s Initiative shall be valid

when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60
days nor later than 90 days after the certification
by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition.
Requisites for a valid Ratification
1. Held in a plebiscite conducted under the

Election Law;
2. Supervised by COMELEC; and
3. Only registered voters take part.
Doctrine of Proper Submission
Under this doctrine, there should be no piece-

meal submission to the people of proposed
amendments to the Constitution. This is to enable
them to make an intelligent appraisal thereof.
(Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-34150,
October16, 1971)
Initiative
It is the power of the people to propose

amendments to the Constitution or to propose
and enact legislation.
Kinds of Initiative under the Initiative and

Referendum Act (RA 6735)
4. Initiative on the Constitution – Refers to a

petition proposing amendments to the
Constitution.
5. Initiative on statutes – Refers to a petition to
enact a national legislation.
6. Initiative on local legislation – Refers to a
petition proposing to enact a regional,
provincial, municipal, city, or barangay law,
resolution or ordinance. [RA 6735, Sec. 3 (a)]
NOTE: Sec. 3 (b) of RA 6735 provides for:
a. Indirect Initiative – Exercise of initiative

b. Direct Initiative – The people themselves filed
the petition with the COMELEC and not with
Congress.
RA 6735 is INADEQUATE in covering the system

of initiative on amendments to the Constitution
(2014 Bar)
Under the said law, initiative on the Constitution is

confined only to proposals to amend. The people are
not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact,
approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the
Constitution" through the system of initiative. They
can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or
resolutions." Secondly, the Act does not provide for
the contents of a petition for initiative on the
Constitution. The use of the clause "proposed laws
sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended
or repealed" denotes that RA 6735 excludes
initiative on the amendments of the Constitution.
Also, while the law provides subtitles for National

Initiative and Referendum and for Local Initiative
and Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative
on the Constitution. This means that the main thrust
of the law is initiative and referendum on national
and local laws. If RA 6735 were intended to fully
provide for the implementation of the initiative on
amendments to the Constitution, it could have
provided for a subtitle, considering that in the order
of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of
values, the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution is far more
important than the initiative on national and local
laws.
While RA 6735 specially detailed the process in

implementing initiative and referendum on national
and local laws, it intentionally did not do so on the
system of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution. (Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC G.R. No.
127325, March 19, 1997)
Referendum
It is the power of the electorate to approve or reject

legislation through an election called for that
purpose.
Kinds of Referendum
3. Referendum on Statutes - Refers to a petition to

approve or reject a law, or part thereof, passed
by Congress.
4. Referendum on Local Law – Refers to a petition
to approve or reject a law, resolution
or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies
and local legislative bodies.
Initiative vs. Referendum (2000 Bar)
BASIS INITIATIVE REFERENDUM

1. Propose
amendments
to the Approve or
Extent Constitution; reject
2. Propose and legislation
enact
legislation.
NOTE: The following are the limitations on

initiative or referendum:
c. No petition embracing more than one (1)

subject shall be submitted to the electorate.
d. Statutes involving emergency measures,
the enactment of which are specifically
vested in Congress by the Constitution,
cannot be subject to referendum until 90
days after their effectivity. (RA 6735, Sec.
10)
POLITICAL LAW
international law others are conferred by
international instruments of universal or
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS quasi- universal character. (Romulo v. Vinuya,
G.R. No. 162230, April 29, 2010)
Public International Law (PIL)
It is a body of legal principles, norms and

processes which regulates the relations of States
and other international persons and governs
their conduct affecting the interest of the
international community as a whole. (Magallona,
2005)
Private International Law (PRIL) or Conflict of

Laws
It is that part of law which comes into play when

the issue before the court affects some fact, event
or transaction that is so clearly connected with a
foreign system of law as to necessitate recourse
to that system. (Sempio-Diy, Conflict of Laws, 2004
ed.,
p. 1, citing Cheshire, Private International Law,
1947 ed., p. 6)
Grand divisions of PIL
1. Laws of Peace – They govern normal relations

between States in the absence of war;
2. Laws of War – They govern relations between
hostile or belligerent states during wartime;
and,
3. Laws of Neutrality – They govern relations
between a non-participant State and a
participant State during wartime or among
non-participating States.
OBLIGATIONS ERGA OMNES
An obligation of every State towards the

international community as a whole. All states
have a legal interest in its compliance, and thus
all States are entitled to invoke responsibility for
breach of such an obligation. (Case Concerning
The Barcelona Traction, ICJ 1970)
NOTE: Such obligations derive, for example, in

contemporary international law, from the
outlawing of acts of aggression, and of genocide,
as also from the principles and rules concerning
the basic rights of the human person, including
protection from slavery and racial discrimination.
Some of the corresponding rights of protection
have entered into the body of general
PUbLIC InteRNAtIOnAl LAW
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL
Examples of obligations erga omnes LAW
Examples or norms with jus cogens in
1. Outlawing of acts of aggression; character
2. Outlawing of genocide;
3. Basic human rights; and, 1. Laws on genocide;
4. Protection from slavery and racial 2. Principle of self-determination;
discrimination. 3. Principle of racial non-discrimination;
4. Crimes against humanity;
JUS COGENS 5. Prohibition against slavery and slave trade;
6. Piracy; and
Also referred to as ‘peremptory norm of general 7. Torture.
international law’.
Distinguish Jus Cogens from Erga Omnes
Literally means “compelling law.” A norm accepted Obligation
and recognized by the international community of
States as a whole as a norm from which no 1. All jus cogens rules create erga omnes
derogation is permitted and which can be modified obligations while only some rules creating
only by a subsequent norm of general international erga omnes obligations are rules of jus
law having the same character. (Vienna Convention on cogens;
the Law of Treaties, Art. 53) 2. With regard to jus cogens obligations the
emphasis is on their recognition by the
Elements of jus cogens international community ‘as a whole,’ whilst
with regard to obligations erga omnes the
1. A norm accepted and recognized by emphasis is on their nature;
international community of states as a whole; 3. The legal consequences of violations or rules
2. No derogation is permitted; and, creating erga omnes obligations differ from
3. Which can only be modified by a subsequent those of breach of the rules of jus cogens in
norm having the same character. that in addition to the consequences deriving
from a breach of erga omnes obligations NOTE: Under Art. 38 (1)(c) of the Statute of the International
further consequences, specified in Art. 53 of Court of Justice (ICJ), equity is 1) a general principle of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties international law; and 2) a way of infusing elements of
(VCLT), follow from violations of the rules of reasonableness and “individualised” justice whenever a law
jus cogens. leaves a margin of discretion to a Court in deciding a case.
NOTE: According to Art. 53 of the VCLT, a treaty If the principle of equity is accepted, customary law may be
is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts supplemented or modified in order to achieve justice.
with a peremptory norm of general international (Kacrozowska, 2010)
law. For the purposes of the present Convention,
a peremptory norm of general international law Under Art. 38(2) of the Statute of the ICJ, means that a decision
is a norm accepted and recognized by the may be made ex aequo et bono, i.e. the court should decide the
international community of States as a whole as a case not on legal considerations but solely on what is fair and
norm from which no derogation is permitted and reasonable in the circumstances of the case (equity
which can be modified only by a subsequent contralegem). However, the parties must expressly authorize
norm of general international law having the the court to decide a case ex auquo et bono.
same character.
Art. 33 of the United Nations Commission on International
EX AEQUO ET BONO Trade Law’s Arbitration Rules (1976) provides that the
arbitrators shall consider only the applicable law, unless the
The concept of ex aequo et bono literally means arbitral agreement allows the arbitrators to consider ex aequo
“according to the right and good” or “from equity et bono, or amiable compositeur.
and conscience.”
A judgment based on considerations of fairness,

not on considerations of existing law, that is, to
simply decide the case based upon a balancing of
the equities. (Brownlie, 2003)
POLITICAL LAW
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL
AND NATIONAL LAW
Monism (Monistic Theory)
Both international law and domestic

law are part of a single legal order;
international law is automatically
incorporated into each nation’s
legal system and that international
law is supreme over domestic law.
Here, international laws or norms

are applicable within the municipal
system even without a positive act
of the state.
Dualism (Dualist or Pluralist Theory)
This affirms that the international

law and municipal law are distinct
and separate; each is supreme in
its own sphere and level of
operation.
An international norm or law must

first be transformed or adopted into
the municipal system through a
positive act of the state.
International law vs. Municipal law
BASIS INTERNATION MUNICIPAL

AL LAW LAW
Adopted by Issued by a
Enacting states as a political
Authority common rule of superior for
action. observance.
Regulate Regulate
relations of relations of
states and other individuals
Purpose international among
persons. themselves
or with their
own states.
Applies to the Applies to a
conduct of single
States and country or
international nation and
organizations, within a
Scope of their relations determined
Application with each other territory and
or, their to its
relations with inhabitants.
persons, natural
or
juridical.
Derived Consists
principally from mainly of
Source(s) treaties, enactments
international from the
customs and lawmaking
general authority of the Constitution.
principles of each state.
law. In a situation however, where the conflict is
Resolved thru Redressed irreconcilable, and a choice has to be made
state-to-state thru local between a rule of international law and municipal
Remedy in
transactions. administrati law, jurisprudence dictates that municipal law
case should be upheld by the municipal courts for the
ve and
judicial reason that such courts are organs of municipal
of violation processes. law and are accordingly bound by it in all
Collective Individual circumstances.
responsibility responsibilit
Reason: y The fact that international law has been made
Scope of part of the law of the land does not pertain to or
because it
Responsibili imply the primacy of international law over
attaches
ty national or municipal law in the municipal
directly to the
state and not to sphere. The doctrine of incorporation decrees
its nationals that rules of international law are given equal
Subject to Not subject standing with, but are not superior to, national
judicial notice to judicial legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle
before notice of lex posterior derogat priori takes effect – a
international before treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may
tribunals. internationa repeal a treaty.
l tribunals
(Vienna In states where the Constitution is the highest law
Convention of the land, such as the Republic of the
Role on the Law Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be
of Treaties, invalidated if they are in conflict with the
in Art. 27; Constitution. (Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Ralph
Internation Permanent C. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, Jan. 18, 2000)
al Tribunals Court of
Internationa Examples of “generally accepted principles of
l Justice, international law”
1931, Polish
Nationals in 1. Pacta sunt servanda;
Danzig 2. Rebus sic stantibus;
Case). - things remain as they are
- opposite of pacta sund servanda
Doctrine of Incorporation
3. Par in parem non habet imperium;
It means that the rules of international law form - all states are sovereign equals
part of the law of the land and no further - an equal state cannot assume jurisdiction
legislative action is needed to make such rules over another equal state
applicable in the domestic sphere.
4. State Immunity from Suit;
The doctrine of incorporation is applied - a state (and its agents acting within their
whenever municipal tribunals (or local courts) official capacity) cannot be sued without its
are confronted with situations in which there consent
appears to be a conflict between a rule of
international law and the provisions of the 4. Right of states to self-defense; and
Constitution or statute of the local state. 5. Right to self-determination of people.
Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize Doctrine of Transformation

them, so as to give effect to both since it is to be
presumed that municipal law was enacted with It provides that the generally accepted rules of
proper regard for the generally accepted international law are not per se binding upon the
principles of international law in observance of state but must first be embodied in legislation
the Incorporation Clause in Section 2, Article II of enacted by the lawmaking body and so
transformed into municipal law. [Cruz,
305
International Law ensure fulfillment of the
(2003 Ed.), p. 6] obligation undertaken. contai on to the
n principle of
NOTE: This doctrine Principle of Auto-Limitation limita auto-
runs counter Art. II, (2006 Bar) tions limitation
Sec. 2 of the 1987 on characterize
Constitution, which It is the doctrine where a Philip s the
states that “The state adheres to principles of pine Philippine
Philippines xxx adopts international law as a sover commitment
the generally accepted limitation/restriction to eignty s under
principles of
international law as SOURCES OF OBLIGATIONS IN
part of the law of the INTERNATIONAL LAW
land xxx”. the exercise of its . The WTO-GATT.
sovereignty. consi (Ibid.)
Types of derati
Transformation NOTE: While sovereignty has on in
Theories traditionally been deemed this Art. 38 of the
absolute and all- partia Statute of
1. Hard encompassing on the l International
Transformation domestic level, it is however surre Court of
Theory – Only subject to restrictions and nder Justice (SICJ)
legislation can limitations voluntarily agreed of provides that
transform to by the Philippines, sover the Court,
international law expressly or impliedly, as a eignty whose
into domestic law. member of the family of is the function is to
Courts may apply nations. By the doctrine of recipr decide in
international law incorporation, the country is ocal accordance
only when bound by generally accepted comm with
authorized by principles of international itmen international
legislation; and, law, which are considered to t of law such
2. Soft be automatically part of our other disputes as
Transformation own laws. Thus, sovereignty contr are submitted
Theory – Either a of a state is not absolute in an acting to it, shall
judicial or international level. States apply:
legislative act of a in
state can Corollary, a state has agreed granti Primary Sources (2012
transform to surrender some if its ng the Bar)
International Law sovereign rights in exchange same
into domestic law. for greater benefits that it privil 1. International
may derive by being a ege conventions or treaties;
Pacta Sunt Servanda member of family of nations and 2. International custom;
(2000 Bar) or by virtue of treaty immu and
stipulations. Correlation of nities 3. The
International Reciprocity and the to the general
agreements must be Principle of Auto- Philip principle
performed in good Limitation pines. s of law
faith. A treaty recognize
engagement is not a When the Philippines enters NOTE d by
mere moral obligation into treaties, necessarily, : For civilized
but creates a legally these international exam nations
binding obligation agreements may ple,
on the parties. A state this Subsidiary Sources
which has contracted kind
a valid international of 1. Judicial decisions; and
agreement is bound to recipr 2. Teaching
make in its legislation ocity s of the
such modification as in most
may be necessary to relati highly
qual mere fact of
ifie persistent
d usage over a
pub long period of
licis time. [Cruz,
ts of International
vari Law (2003 Ed.),
ous p. 22]
nati
ons. A customary
rule requires
INTERNATIONAL the presence
CONVENTIONS OR of two
TREATIES elements:
(See 1. An
discussi objective
ons element
under (general
the practice)
heading consisting of
Treaties a relatively
, and the uniform and
Vienna constant
Convent State
ion on practice;
the Law and,
of
Treaties 2. A
) psychologi
cal element
INTERN consisting of
ATIONA subjective
L conviction
CUSTO of a State
M OR that it is
CUSTO legally
MARY bound to
INTERN behave in a
ATIONA particular
L LAW way in
(CIL) respect
A
custom
is a
practice
which
has
grown
betwee
n states
and has
come to
be
accepte
d as
binding
by the
307
of a particular type of situation. This element customary international law bears the burden of
is usually referred to as the opinio juris sive proving it meets both requirements (objective
necessitates. and psychological elements).
The Objective Element – general practice Binding effect of international customs
This is normally constituted by the repetition of GR: All States are bound by international
certain behavior on the part of a State for a customs, including Dissenting States.
certain length of time which manifests a certain
attitude, without ambiguity, regarding a XPN: Dissenting States are not bound by
particular matter. Evidence of state practice may international customs if they had consistently
include a codifying treaty, if a sufficient number objected to it while the project was merely in the
of states sign, ratify, or accede. process of formation (Persistent Objector Rule).
However, as no particular duration is required Dissent, however protects only the dissenter and
for practice to become law, on some occasions, does not apply to other States. A State joining the
instant customs comes into existence. For that international law system for the first time after a
reason, a few repetitions over a short period of practice has become customary law is bound by
time may suffice or many over a long period of such practice.
time or even no repetition at all in so far as an
instant custom is concerned. However, the Persistent Objector Rule
shorter the time, the more extensive the practice
would have to be to become law. If during the formative stage of a rule of
customary international law, a State persistently
A practice must be constant and uniform, in objects to that developing rule it will not be
particular with regard to the affected States, but bound by it. Once a customary rule has come into
complete uniformity is not required. It would existence, it will apply to all States except any
suffice that conduct is generally consistent with persistent objectors. However, an objecting State,
the rule and that instances of practice in order to rely on the persistent objector rule,
inconsistent with the rule are treated as breaches must:
of that practice is concerned, this will usually
mean widespread but not necessarily universal 1. Raise its objection at the formative stage of
adherence to the rule. the rule in question;
2. Be consistent in maintaining its objection;
Indeed, custom may be either general or regional. and,
General customs apply to the international 3. Inform other States of its objection. This is
community as a whole. Local or regional particularly important with regard to a rule
customs apply to a group of States or just two which has been almost universally accepted.
States in their relations inter se. If a State remains silent, its silence will be
interpreted as acquiescence to the new rule.
The Subjective Element – opinio juris sive
necessitates NOTE: The burden of proof is on the objecting
State. The persistent objector rule does not apply
To assume the status of CIL, the rule in question if the CIL has already evolved into a jus cogens
must be regarded by States as being binding in rule.
law, i.e. that they are under a legal obligation to
obey it. The relationship between treaties and
international custom
The main purpose of the opinio juris sive
necessitates is to distinguish between customary They co-exist, develop each other and, sometimes,
rule and mere usage followed out of courtesy or clash. If there is a clash between a customary rule
habit. Usage, while also a long established way of and a provision of a treaty because they are of
doing things, is not coupled with opinion juris equal authority (except when the customary rule
(conviction that it is obligatory and right). involved is of a jus cogens nature whereupon
being superior it will prevail), the one which is
NOTE: In the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases, identified as being the lex specialis will prevail.
the ICJ stated that the party asserting a rule of The lex specialis will be determined contextually.
307
Treaties resulting to rules of customary law theref are useful to
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ore, the extent
LAW strictly they address
Treaties may give rise speaki international
to rules of customary The general principles of law ng not law directly
law when the are mostly derived from the a or
following conditions law of nature and are formal demonstrate
are present: observed by the majority of source a general
states because they are of law. principle.
1. The provisions of believed to be good and just. Howev
the treaty should [Cruz, International Law er, Art. 59 of the Statute of the
be fundamentally (2003 Ed.), p 24] they ICJ, provides that:
norm-creating in clarify
character; Reference to such principles the “decisions of
2. Participation in is taken whenever no existin the courts
the treaty or municipal law, custom or g law have no
convention must treaty is applicable, as on the binding force,
include those directed under Art. 38 of the topic except for the
States whose ICJ. In order to exist, they and parties and in
interest would be must be recognized by may, in respect of the
affected by the civilized nations. some case
provision in circum concerned.”
question; and, NOTE: The main objective of stance
3. Within the period inserting the third source in s, This provision shows that:
of time since the Art. 38 is to fill in gaps in create
adoption of the treaty and customary law and a new 1. Decis
treaty or to meet the possibility of a princip ion
convention, State non liquet. le in of
practice must intern the
have been both Non liquet means the ational ICJ
extensive and possibility that a court or law. has
uniform. tribunal could not decide a They no
case because of a ‘gap’ in law. can bindi
NOTE: The party also be ng
invoking the rule must consid auth
e.g.: Burden of proof,
be the one to prove ered ority;
admissibility of evidence,
that the rule meets all eviden and,
waiver, estoppel, unclean
the requirements for ce of 2. ICJ does not make
hands, necessity, and force
the creation of State law.
majeure.
customary law practic
e. NOTE: In
DECISIONS OF
The treaty may also practice, the
INTERNATIONAL
reflect a custom in Judicia ICJ will follow
TRIBUNALS
three ways: l the previous
decisio decisions so
As there is no binding
1. It may be ns, as to have
authority of precedent in
declarative of a wheth judicial
international law,
custom; or, er consistency,
international court and
2. It may crystallize from or if it does
tribunal cases do not make
a rule of custom intern not follow,
law. Judicial decisions are,
in statu nascendi; ational the court will
or, tribun distinguish
3. It may serve to als or its previous
generate a rule of from decisions
customary law in domes from the case
the future. tic actually being
courts, heard.
(Interpretatio

n of authors “highly qualified treaties or
Peace concerning publicists.” international
Treaties what the law agreements,
, 1950) ought to be, Burdens of as well as
but for Proof customary
TEACHING OF trustworthy laws. These
AUTHORITATIVE evidence of In the Corfu instruments
PUBLICISTS what the law Channel Case result in
(Including Learned really is. (U.K. v. Albania, legally
Writers) (Justice Gray 1949), the ICJ enforceable
in Paquete set out the commitments
“Teachi Habana case, burdens of proof for countries
ngs” 175 U.S. 677) applicable to (states) and
refer cases before it. other
simply Requisites to The Applicant international
to the be a most normally carries subjects.
writings highly the burden of
of qualified proof with Soft law
learned publicist: respect to (2009 Bar)
scholars factual
. 1. His allegations These are non-
Howeve writings contained in its binding rules
r, the must be claim by a of
Article fair and preponderance international
38(1) impartial of the evidence. law. Soft law is
(d) of representa The burden falls of relevance
the ICJ tion of law; on the and
is and, Respondent importance to
expressl 2. He/she acknowledged with respect to the
y authority in the field. factual development
limited allegations of
to e.g.: Grotius, contained in a international
teaching Lauterpacht, cross-claim. law because it:
s of “the Oppenheim, However, the
most Crawford, Aust, Court may draw 1. has the
highly Shaw, and an adverse potential
qualifie Brownlie. inference if of law-
d Authoritative evidence is making,
publicist sources within solely in the i.e. it may
s.” this list include control of one be a
the writings of party that starting
Such former Judges, refuses to point for
works the secondary produce it. later
are opinions of ‘hardenin
resorte Judges who are Hard law (2009 g’ of non-
d to by not in the Bar) binding
judicial majority of provision
tribuna their cases, and Means binding s (e.g.
ls not documents laws; to UNGA
for the created by the constitute law, a resolution
specula International rule, instrument s may be
tion of Law or decision must translated
their Commission. be authoritative into
and binding
Within the additional prescriptive. In treaties);
context of a scholars who international 2. may
specific field, would be law, hard law provide
there are regarded as includes evidence
309
of an existing is that it should
customary not be source of reflects binding
rule; considered as an international law principles of
3. may be independent, despite the fact that international
formative of formal it may produce law. Can the
the opinio significant legal Court consider
juris or of effects. these principles
State as binding under
practice that Q: Ang Ladlad is international
creates a incorporated in law?
new 2003, and first
customary applied for A: NO, the Court
rule; registration with cannot rely on the
4. may be the COMELEC in application of the
helpful as a 2006. The Yogyakarta
means of a application for Principle.
purposive accreditation was
interpretatio denied on the There are
n of ground that the declarations and
international organization had obligations
law; no substantial outlined in said
5. may be membership base. Principles which
incorporated On August 17, are not reflective
within 2009, Ang Ladlad of the current
binding again filed a state of
treaties but Petition for international law,
in provisions registration with and do not find
which the the COMELEC. On basis in any of the
parties do November 11, sources of
not intend to 2009, after international law
be binding; admitting the enumerated
6. may in other petitioner’s under Article
ways assist evidence, the 38(1) of the
in the COMELEC (Second Statute of the
development Division) International
and dismissed the Court of Justice.
application Petition on moral Petitioner also
of general grounds. In this has not
international Petition before undertaken any
law. the Court, Ang objective and
Ladlad invokes rigorous analysis
NOTE: The that the of these alleged
importance of soft Yogyakarta principles of
law is emphasized Principles - a set international law
by the fact that of international to ascertain their
not only States principles relating true status.
but also non-State to sexual
actors participate orientation and International law
in the gender identity, is full of principles
international law- intended to that promote
making process address international
through the documented cooperation,
creation of soft evidence of abuse harmony, and
law. Nevertheless, of rights of respect for human
soft law is made lesbian, gay, rights, most of
up of rules lacking bisexual, and which amount to
binding force, and transgender no more than
the general view (LGBT) well-meaning
individuals, desires, without

the support of either international law is Lolas have
State practice or an entity that has nations amongapproached
opinio juris. These rights and members the
principles are at best responsibilities international Executive
- de lege ferenda - and under that law. It communities. Department
do not constitute has an international through the
binding obligations personality in that DOJ, DFA,
on the Philippines. it can directly NOTE: and OSG,
Much of assert rights and be Under requesting
contemporary held directly the assistance in
international law is responsible under traditi filing a claim
characterized by the the law of nations. onal against the
soft law It meant that it can conce Japanese
nomenclature. be a proper party in pt, officials and
transactions only military
involving the states officers who
application of the are ordered the
SUBJECTS law of nations consid establishme
among members of ered nt of the
A subject of the international subject “comfort
community. [Cruz, s of women”
intern stations in
International Law ompl ational the
(2003 Ed.), p. 27] ete law. Philippines.
subje Howev But officials
The subjects of cts er, of the
international law: Prot under Executive
ector the Department
1. Direct subjects ates; conte declined to
a. States; b. Federal states; and mpora assist the
b. Colonies and c. Mandated and trust ry petitioners,a
dependencies; territories. conce nd took the
c. mandates and pt, position that
trust Object individ the
territories uals individual
(2003 Bar); They are those who indirectly and claims of the
belligerent have rights under, or are intern comfort
communities; beneficiaries of international ational women for
BASIS
d. The Vatican;SUBJECT law OBJECT through subjects of organi compensatio
Entity that has international
e. The United Person or
law. zations n had
Nations;rights and thing in are already been
responsibilitie
international respect of
Subject vs. Object of also fully
s under that
administrativ which rights
International Law subject satisfied by
Definition
law.
e bodies; and are held and s Japan’s
f. To a certain obligations becaus compliance
extent, assumed by e they with the
individuals. the subject. have Peace Treaty
Has Not directly rights between the
international
2. Indirect subjects governed by and Philippines
personality
a. International the rules of duties and Japan.
that
organizations; it can international under May we
Applicable directly assert law.
b. Individuals; intern force the
law and rights and can ational government
be
c. Corporations. held law. to pursue
responsible the claims of
3. I under the law Q: comfort
n of nations. Malay women
c It can be a Its rights are a under the
Capacity to proper party received and
enter into in transactions its
transactio involving the responsibilitie 311
n application of s imposed
the law of indirectly
doctrin international decide whether its
e of jus legal system
cogens? has been when protection will Community
the individual be granted, to
A: NO, is able to what extent it is It is the body
the persuade a granted, and of juridical
Philippi government to when will it entities which
nes is bring a claim cease. It retains, are governed
not on the a discretionary by the law of
under individual’s power the nations.
any behalf. Even exercise of
internat then, it is not which may be NOTE: Under
ional the individual’s determined by the modern
obligati rights that are considerations concept, it is
on to being asserted, of a political or composed not
espouse but rather, the other nature, only of States
petition state’s own unrelated to the but also of
ers’ rights. particular case. such other
claims. The international
The question International persons such
From a whether the Law as the UN, the
domesti Philippine Commissions Vatican City,
c law government (ILCs) Draft colonies and
perspec should espouse Articles on dependencies,
tive, the claims of its Diplomatic mandates and
Executiv nationals Protection fully trust
e against a support this territories,
Depart foreign traditional view. international
ment government is They (i) state administrative
has the a foreign that "the right of bodies,
exclusiv relations diplomatic belligerent
e matter, the protection communities
preroga authority for belongs to or and even
tive to which is vests in the individuals.
determi demonstrably State,(ii) affirm
ne committed by its discretionary STA
whether our nature by
to Constitution clarifying that It is a
espouse not to the diplomatic community of
petition courts but to protection is a persons, more
er’s the political "sovereign or less
claims branches. In prerogative" of numerous,
against this case, the the State; and permanently
Japan. Executive (iii) stress that occupying a
In the Department the state "has definite
internat has already the right to portion of
ional decided that it exercise territory,
sphere, is to the best diplomatic independent
the only interest of the protection on of external
means country to behalf of a control, and
availabl waive all claims national. It is possessing an
e for of its nationals under no duty organized
individu for reparations or obligation to government to
als to against Japan in do so. (Vinuya v. which the
bring a the Treaty of Romulo, G.R. No. great body of
claim Peace of 1951. 162230, April inhabitants
within 28, 2010) render
the The State is the sole judge to habitual
International obedience.

international as defined in
Elements of a Other suggested plane? international law
State elements of a State
A: From the It is the right to
1. Permanent 1. Civilization standpoint of the exercise in a
population 2. Recognition national legal order, definite portion of
(people) – An State sovereignty is the globe the
aggregate of Nation the supreme legal functions of a
individuals of authority in relation State to the
both sexes, Nation is defined as to subjects within exclusion of
a body of people its territorial
who live another State.
more or less of the
together as a domain. This is the Sovereignty in the
same race,
community traditional context relations between
language, religion
despite racial in referring to States signifies
and historical
or cultural sovereignty as independence.
traditions. (Fenwick
differences; absolute. However, Independence in
104; Sarmiento,
2. Defined in international regard to a
2007)
territory – sphere, sovereignty portion of the
Fixed portion realizes itself in the globe is the right
Doctrine of Equality
of the earth’s existence of a large to exercise therein
of States
surface which number of to the exclusion of
the sovereignties, such any other State,
All states are equal
inhabitants that there prevails the functions of a
in international law
occupy; in fact co-existence State. (Island of
despite of their
3. Government of sovereignties Palmas case: USA
obvious factual
– The agency under conditions of v. the Netherlands,
inequalities as to
through independence and April 4, 1928)
size, population,
which the will equality.
wealth, strength, or
of the state is (Magallona, 2004) Fundamental rights
degree of
formulated, of a State
expressed civilization.
State sovereignty
and realized; (Sarmiento, 2007)
and 1. Existence and takes place when one state
4. Capacity to Principle of State self- assumes the rights and
enter into Continuity preservation; some of the obligations of
relations with 2. Sovereignty and another because of certain
other states From the moment independence; changes in the condition of
(independenc of its creation, the 3. Equality; the latter. This holds true in
e/sovereignty state continues as a 4. Property and the event that a state is
) – The power juristic being jurisdiction; and, extinguished or is created.
of a state to notwithstanding 5. Diplomatic (Cruz, 2000)
manage its changes in its intercourse.
external circumstances “Clean Slate” Rule
affairs provided only that Extinguishment of a
without they do not result in State When one State ceases to
direction or loss of any of its exist and is succeeded by
interference essential elements. The radical another on the same
from another (Sapphire Case, 11 impairment of actual territory, the newly
state. Wall. 164 in Cruz, loss of one or more independent State is not
(Montevideo 2003) of the essential bound to maintain in force,
Convention elements of the state or to become a party to, any
on the Rights Q: If State will result in its treaty by reason only of the
and Duties of sovereignty is said extinction. (Cruz, fact that at the date of the
States, Art. 1) to be absolute, 2003) succession of States the
how is it related to treaty was in force in
the independence Succession respect of the territory to
of other States and which the succession of
to their equality State succession States relates.
on the
313
wherever located,
XPNs passes to the c. W passe
1. When the new absorbing State; or he s to
State agrees to be re the
bound by the a new
treaties made by pa State.
its predecessor; rt
2. Treaties affecting of 3. As to
boundary regime a public
(uti possidetis); St debts –
and at the
3. Customary e agreeme
international law. be nt
co between
Rules on state m predeces
succession es sor and
a successor
1. As to territory – se State
The capacities, pa govern;
rights and duties rat otherwis
of the predecessor e e:
State with respect St a. Wher
to that territory at e a
terminate and are e, part
assumed by the pr of
successor State. op the
2. As to State ert territ
property – The y ory
agreement of of a
between the th State
predecessor and e beco
the successor pr mes
State govern; ed part
otherwise: ec of
a. Where a part es the
of the so territ
territory of a r ory
State St of
becomes part at anot
of the e her
territory of loc State,
another State, at local
property of ed publi
the in c
predecessor th debt
State located e and
in that ter the
territory rit right
passes to the or s and
successor y oblig
State; of ation
b. Where a State th s of
is absorbed e the
by another ne pred
State, w ecess
property of St or
the absorbed at State
State, e unde
r

c he th ate,
o succes at the
n sor ter inter
t State; rit natio
r b. Where or nal
a a State y agree
c is ar ment
t absorb e s of
s ed by tra the
anothe nsf pred
r r State, err ecess
e public ed or
l debt to State
a and th cease
t the e to
i rights su have
n and cc effect
g obligat es in
ions so respe
t under r ct of
o contra St the
cts of ate territ
t the . ory
h absorb and
a ed 4. As to treaties inter
t State a. W natio
pass to he nal
t the n agree
e absorb pa ment
r ing rt s of
r State; of the
i c. Where th succe
t a part e ssor
o of a ter State
r State rit come
y becom or into
es a y force
separa of there
a
te a .
r
State, St
e
local at NOT
public e E:
t be “Mov
debt
r co ing
and
a m Treat
the
n es y or
rights
s th Movi
and
f e ng
obligat
e ter Boun
ions of
r rit darie
the
r or s”
predec
e y Rule
essor
d of – A
State
under an third
t contra ot State
o cts he may
relatin r seek
t g to St relief
315
f ate is ne whic
r absorb w h the
o ed by St pred
m anothe at ecess
r State, e, or
t the th State
h interna e was a
e tional ne party
agree w ,
t ments St unles
r of the at s,
e absorb e expr
a ed do essly
t State es or by
y are no impli
termin t catio
o ated su n, it
n and cc accep
the ee ts
g interna d such
r tional to agree
o agree th ment
u ments e s and
n of the int the
d absorb er other
ing na party
o State tio or
f becom na parti
e l es
r applica ag there
e ble to re to
b the e agree
u territo m or
s ry of en acqui
the ts esce;
s absorb to or,
i ed
c State. c. Pre-
existing 1. Laws
s bounda partaking
NOTE:
ry and of a
t “Movin
other political
a g
territori complexio
n Treaty
al n are
t or
agreem abrogated
i Movin
ents automatic
b g
continu ally
u Bound
e to be 2. Laws
s aries”
binding regulating
Rule
notwith private
W may
standin and
h apply.
g (Uti domestic
e
possidet rights
n b. When
is rule). continue
a part
in force
a of a
Effects of a until
State
change of changed or
S becom
sovereignty on abrogated
t es a
municipal laws

Effect of change US although the against their
of sovereignty Americans could own Eriberto Misa, ibid)
when Spain not exercise any government
ceded the control over the without the NOTE: An
Philippines to occupied latter incurring inhabitant of a
the US territory at the the risk of being conquered State
time. What the prosecuted for may be convicted
The political laws belligerent treason. To of treason against
of the former occupant took allow the legitimate
sovereign are not over was merely suspension is to sovereign
merely suspended the exercise of commit political committed during
but abrogated. As acts of suicide. the existence of
they regulate the sovereignty. (Anastacio belligerency.
relations between (Anastacio Laurel vs. Although the
the ruler and the Laurel vs. penal code is a
ruled, these laws Eriberto Misa, non- political law,
fall to the ground G.R. No. L-409, it is applicable to
ipso facto unless January 30, treason
they are retained 1947) committed
or re-enacted by against the
positive act of the Status of national security
new sovereign. allegiance of the legitimate
during government,
Non-political Japanese because the
laws, by contrast, occupation inhabitants of the
continue in occupied territory
operation, for the There was no were still bound
reason also that case of by their allegiance
they regulate suspended to the latter
private relations allegiance during the enemy
only, unless they during the occupation. Since
are changed by Japanese the preservation
the new sovereign occupation. of the allegiance
or are contrary to Adoption of the or the obligation
its institutions. theory of of fidelity and
(Cruz, Public suspended obedience of a
International Law, allegiance citizen or subject
2014) would lead to to his government
disastrous or sovereign does
Effect of consequences not demand from
Japanese for small and him a positive
occupation to weak nations or action, but only
the sovereignty states, and passive attitude
of the US over would be or forbearance
the Philippines repugnant to the from adhering to
laws of the enemy by
Sovereignty is not humanity and giving the latter
deemed requirements of aid and comfort,
suspended public the occupant has
although acts of conscience, for it no power, as a
sovereignty would allow corollary of the
cannot be invaders to preceding
exercised by the legally recruit or consideration, to
legitimate enlist the repeal or suspend
authority. Thus, quisling the operation of
sovereignty over inhabitants of the law of treason.
the Philippines the occupied (Anastacio Laurel
remained with the territory to fight vs. Eriberto Misa,
317
ibid) denounced diplomatic relations with it.
;and, relations with
Succession of b. Routinary it; and, Theories of recognition of
government acts of 3. To recognize in a State (2004 Bar)(Con-
mere case of Dec)
There is succession governmen insurgents that
of government where tal they are 1. Constitutive theory –
one government administra entitled to Recognition is the last
replaces another tion exercise indispensable element
either peacefully or continue to belligerent that converts the state
by violent methods. be rights being recognized into
The integrity of the effective. (Hackworth, an international
state is not affected; 166) person; and,
the state continues as Recognition 2. Declaratory theory –
the same Kinds of Recognition is merely
international person It is the Recognition an acknowledgment of
except only that its acknowledgment the pre-existing fact
lawful representative extended by a State to: 1. Express that the state being
is changed. (Cruz, 1. Another State; recognition- may recognized is an
2000) 2. Government; or a be verbal or in international person.
3. Belligerent writing. It may (Cruz, 2003)
Effects of a change of community be extended
government through: Authority to recognize
Recognition is not an a. Formal
1. If the change is element of the State proclamati It is to be determined
peaceful, the new on or according to the municipal
government The political announcem law of each State.
assumes the existence of the ent;
rights and state is b. Stipulation
responsibilities independent of in a treaty;
of the old recognition by the c. Letter or
government;and, other states. Even telegram;
2. If the change was before recognition, or,
effected thru the state has the d. Official call
violence, a right to defend its or
distinction must integrity and conference.
be made. independence to
a. Acts of provide for its 2. Implied
political conservation and recognition- it is
complexion prosperity, and when the
may be consequently to recognizing state
enters into
organize itself as it Rights and Duties of States, official
sees fit, to legislate Art. 3) intercourse with
upon its interests, the new member
administer its NOTE: The acknowledgment by:
services, and to define by a State is coupled with an a. Exchangin
the jurisdiction and indication of its willingness g
competence of its to deal with the entity as such diplomatic
courts. The exercise of under international law. representa
these rights has no tives with
other limitation than 1. To treat the new State as it;
the exercise of the such; b. Bipartite
rights of other states 2. To accept the new treaty;
according to government as having c. Acknowled
international law. authority to represent ging its
(Montevideo the State it purports to flag; or,
Convention on the govern and maintain d. Entering
into formal

In ; Trust Government
Philippi c. Military power; and, Territo and MILF
ne d. Power to ry of resulted to
setting: send and the the crafting
It is the receive Pacific of the GRP-
Preside diplomatic Islands MILF Tripoli
nt who represent . Agreement
determi atives. on Peace
nes the The (Tripoli
question NOTE: Being associ Agreement
of essentially ated 2001) which
recognit discretionary, state consists of
ion and the exercise of arrang three (3)
his these powers ement aspects: a.)
decision may not be has security
s on this compelled. usually aspect; b.)
matter been rehabilitatio
are Doctrine of Association used n aspect;
consider (2010 Bar) as a and c.)
ed acts transit ancestral
of state It is formed ional domain
which when two device aspect.
are, states of of
therefor unequal power former Various
e, not voluntarily coloni negotiations
subject establish es on were held
to durable links. their which led to
judicial In the basic way to the
review. model, one full finalization
state, the indepe of the
Basis of Authority of associate, ndenc Memorandu
the President delegates e. m of
(TRiMP) certain Agreement
responsibilities e. g: on the
a. Treaty-making to the other, Antigu Ancestral
power; the principal, a, St. Domain
b. Rig while Kitts- (MOA- AD).
ht maintaining its Nevis- In its body, it
in international Anguill grants “the
gen status as a a, authority
era state. Free Domin and
l to association ica, St. jurisdiction
act represents a Lucia, over the
as middle ground St. Ancestral
the between Vincen Domain and
for integration and t, and Ancestral
eig independence. Grena Lands of the
n da. Bangsamoro
pol NOTE: ” to the
icy Republic of the Q: Bangsamoro
spo Marshall Forma Juridical
kes Islands and the l Entity (BJE).
ma Federated peace The latter, in
n States of talks addition, has
of Micronesia are betwe the freedom
the formerly part en the to enter into
nat of the U.S. Philip any
ion Administered pine economic
319
cooper
ation
and
trade
relation
with

foreign countries. essential
requisites of a
The MOA-AD further provides for the extent of State at the
the territory of the Bangsamoro. With regard time
to governance, on the other hand, a shared recognition is
responsibility and authority between the extended.
Central Government and BJE was provided. Irrevocable. Revocable (if
The relationship was described as brought about
“associative.” Does the MOA-AD violate the As to by violent or
Constitution and the laws? its unconstitutiona
revocabilit l means).
A: YES. The concept of association is not y
recognized under the present Constitution.
Indeed, the concept implies powers that go Requirements for recognition of government
beyond anything ever granted by the Constitution
to any local or regional government. It also 1. The government is stable and effective, with
implies the recognition of the associated entity as no substantial resistance to its authority;
a state. The Constitution, however, does not 2. The government must show willingness and
contemplate any state in this jurisdiction other ability to discharge its international
than the Philippine State, much less does it obligations; and,
provide for a transitory status that aims to 3. The government must enjoy popular consent
prepare any part of Philippine territory for or approval of the people.
independence.
Tests in recognizing a new government
The provisions of the MOA indicate that the
parties aimed to vest in the BJE the status of an 1. Objective test- the government must be able
associated state or, at any rate, a status closely to maintain order within the state and repel
approximating it (Province of North Cotabato v. external aggression; and
GRP, G.R. No. 183591, October 14, 2008). 2. Subjective tests- government is willing to
comply with its international obligations
Recognition of State vs. Recognition of
Government Tobar or Wilson Doctrine (2004 Bar)
BASIS STATE GOVERNMENT It precludes recognition to any government

On a definite Person or a coming into existence by revolutionary means so
territory of group of long as the freely elected representatives of the
human persons capable people thereof have not constitutionally
society of binding the reorganized the country.
politically state they claim
organized, to represent. Stimson Doctrine
independent
and capable There iso recognition of a government
of observing established through external aggression.
the It does not (Nachura, 2009)
obligations carry with it the
of recognition of Estrada Doctrine (2004 Bar)
As to extent
international State.
law. It involves a policy of never issuing any
declaration giving recognition to governments
It carries and of accepting whatever government is in
with it the effective control without raising the issue of
recognition recognition. An inquiry into legitimacy would be
of an intervention in the internal affairs of another
government State.
Reason: The
State Wilson doctrine vs. Estrada doctrine
recognized
has all the In the Wilson or Tobar doctrine, a government
established by means revolution, civil war, coup
315
d’ etat or other forms of internal violence will not be
1. It may refer to to civil
recognized until the Possession of the the state of war war
freely elected properties of its between two within a
representatives of the predecessor in the (2 single
people have organized territory of the ) state.
a constitutional recognizing State ; and, or
government, while in m Requisites in recognizing
the Estrada doctrine NOTE: This is not or belligerency (OSSO)
any diplomatic applicable as to e
representatives in a Recognition of State. sta 1. There
country where an tes must be
upheaval has taken 4. All Acts of the recognized . an
place will deal or not stated or government are In Organize
deal with whatever validated retroactively, w d civil
government is in preventing the hic governm
control therein at the recognizing state from h ent
time and either action passing upon their ca directing
shall not be taken as a legality in its own courts. se, the rebel
judgment on the th forces;
legitimacy of the said Belligerency e 2. The
government. sta rebels
It exists when the inhabitants tes must
De jure recognition of a State rise up in arms for of occupy a
vs. De facto the purpose of overthrowing wa Substanti
recognition (1998 the legitimate government or; r al portion
Bar) when there is a state of war ar of the
between two states. PERIOD
e EFFECT territory
BASIS RECOGNITIO Before ref It is the legitimate government
of the
N DE JURE Two (2) senses Recognition
of er that is responsible for state;
the acts
Relatively belligerency: of re
the of the rebels affecting3. The foreign
permanent. parent d conflict
nationals and their properties.
Duration state to between
as the
1. The belligerent community is
Vests title to th considered a separate legitimat
Entitlemen properties of e state for the purposese of the
t to government be conflict it is waginggovernm
against
properties abroad. lli ent and
the legitimate government;
ge 2. Their relations the for the
Brings about re duration of rebels
hostilities be
Scope of must
full diplomatic nt governed by the laws ofbe
Diplomatic sta Serious,
relations. war;
Power making
tes 3. Troops of other belligerent
; when captured, shall the be
Effects of After an treated as prisoners outcome of
d
recognition war; certain;
Recognition (FIPA)
of 2. Ac the 4. Parent state shall and no
1. Full diplomatic parent tu longer be liable The
4. for anyrebels must be
state al willing
damage that may be caused and able to
relations are
established; EXP: ho to third parties by rebel the laws of
Observe
sti government; war.
Where the
government liti 5. Both belligerents may
recognized is de es exercise theLegal
rightConsequences
to visit of
a Belligerency
and search upon neutral
facto
2. Immunity from m merchant vessels; and,
jurisdiction of ou 6. Both the rebel and the
courts of law of nti legitimate government shall
recognizing State; ng be entitled to full war
3. Right to status
They are under obligation to
2019G OLDENN OTES 316 As to third observe strict neutrality and
States abide by the consequences
arising from that position.
immunity which is based on the need for
effective
Insurgency vs. Belligerency
BASIS INSURGENCY BELLIGERENCY

A mere initial More serious
stage of war. and widespread
It involves a and
rebel presupposes the
movement, existence of war
As to and is usually between two or
nature not more states
recognized. (first sense) or
actual civil war
within a single
state (second
sense).
Sanctions to Belligerency is
insurgency governed by the
are governed rules on
As to the by municipal international
applicable law – Revised law as the
law Penal Code, belligerents
i.e. rebellion. may be given
international
personality.
Recognition of Belligerency
Recognition of belligerency is the formal

acknowledgment by a third party of the existence
of a state of war between the central government
and a portion of that state.
Q: When does belligerency exist?
A: Belligerency exists when a sizable portion of

the territory of a state is under the effective
control of an insurgent community which is
seeking to establish a separate government and
the insurgents are in de facto control of a portion
of the territory and population, have a political
organization, and are able to maintain such
control and conduct themselves according to the
laws of war. For example, Great Britain
recognized a state of belligerency in the United
States during the Civil War.
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Bodies created by sovereign states and whose

functioning is regulated by international law, not
the law of any given country. They have
functional personality which is limited to what is
necessary to carry out their functions as found in
the instruments of the organization. It is set up by
treaty among two or more states. It enjoys
317
presenting such a of the individual person
exercise of its functions and is derived from the claim with a view to and the sanctity of human
treaty creating it. (Bernas, 2009) obtaining reparation rights. Slowly, the
due in respect of the recognition that the
NOTE: The term "international organization" is damage caused to individual person may
generally used to describe an organization set up by both its assets and properly be a subject of
agreement between two or more states. Under its agents (the so- international law is now
contemporary international law, such organizations called functional taking root. The vulnerable
are endowed with some degree of international legal protection) – an doctrine that the subjects
personality such that they are capable of exercising objective of international law are
specific rights, duties and powers. They are organized international legal limited only to states was
mainly as a means for conducting general personality operates dramatically eroded
international business in which the member states erga omnes. towards the second half of
have an interest. the past century. For one,
The Court has come the Nuremberg and Tokyo
"Specialized agencies" are international organizations to the conclusion trials after World War II
having functions in particular fields. (ICMC vs. Calleja, that the organization resulted in the
G.R. No. 85750, September. 28, 1990) is an international unprecedented spectacle of
person. That is not individual defendants for
Q: What does the term “auxiliary status” of some the same thing as acts characterized as
international organizations entail? saying that it is a violations of the laws of
State, which it war, crimes against peace,
A: The term “auxiliary status” of some international certainly is not, or and crimes against
organizations, such as the Red Cross Society, means that its legal humanity. Recently, under
that it is at one and the same time a private personality and the Nuremberg principle,
institution and a public service organization because rights and duties are Serbian leaders have been
the very nature of its work implies cooperation with the same as those of persecuted for war crimes
the state. The PNRC, as a National Society of the a State. Still less is it and crimes against
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the same thing as humanity committed in the
can neither be “classified as an instrumentality of the saying that it is a former Yugoslavia. These
state, so as not to lose its character of neutrality” as ‘super-state’, significant events show
well as its independence, nor strictly as a private whatever that that the individual person
corporation since it is regulated by international expression may is now a valid subject of
humanitarian law and is treated as an auxiliary of the mean. It does not international law.
state. (Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352, January 18, even imply that all (Government of Hong Kong
2011) its rights and duties Special Administrative
must be upon that Region v. Hon. Olalia, G.R.
Q: There has been an assassination on 17 plane. What it does No. 153675, April 19, 2007)
September 1948, by Jewish terrorist mean is that it is a
organizations, of the UN’s chief truce negotiator, a subject of Internal Self-
Swedish national, Count Folke Bernardotte, and international law Determination vs.
of the UN observer, a Frenchman, Colonel André and capable of External Self-
Sérot, while on an official mission for the UN. possessing Determination
They were murdered in the eastern part of international rights
Jerusalem, which was under Israeli control, at the and duties, and that
time when Israel had proclaimed its it has capacity to
independence but had not yet been admitted to maintain its rights
the UN. The UN considered that Israel had by bringing
neglected to prevent or punish the murderers international claims.
and wished to make a claim for compensation
under international law. The UN General
Assembly sought the advice of the ICJ as to the
legal capacity of the UN to make such a claim.
Does UN have a legal personality to make a claim? INDIVIDUALS
A: Yes, UN has legal the UN possessed a judicial The modern trend in

personality. personality on the public international
international plane and was law is the primacy
The Court held that therefore capable of placed on the worth

and, Indige The UNDRIP,
economic, social and independent State,
3. Blocked nous while upholding
cultural development free association
from theor People the right of
within the framework integration with an
meaningful s indigenous
of an existing State. independent State ofor
exercise (UNDR peoples to
the emergence
its right into
to IP). autonomy, does
NOTE: Recognized any other political
internal (Provin not obligate
sources of status self- ce of States to grant
international law determined by
determinati a North indigenous
establish that the people on. Cotaba peoples the
right to self- constitute(Province
modes of to v. near
determination of a implementing
of North GRP, independent
people is normally right Cotabato v. ibid). status of an
fulfilled through determination
GRP, byG.R.
that associated state.
internal self- people. No. 183591, NOTE: There is
determination. October 14, n
NOTE: 2008) o
the most extreme
Internal Self- External Self-
casesNOTE: The
and, even then, r
Determination Determnation
people’s right e
under
People of a states' Establishment
to of a
self- q
defined
pursuit of its political, sovereign
determination
circumstances. and u
does not extend i
Excepti to a unilateral r
onal right of e
cases in secession. m
which e
Right to n
the right
Internal Self- t
to
Determination t
external
of Indigenous h
self-
Peoples a
determi
nation t
can Indigenous S
arise, peoples t
namely: situated within a
States do not t
have a general e
1. Where a State is
right to s
under colonial
independence
rule;
or secession n
2. Subj
from those o
ect
states under w
to
international
forei
law, but they do g
gn
have the right u
dom
amounting to a
inati
the right to r
on
internal self- a
or
determination. n
expl
Such right is t
oitat
recognized by e
ion
the UN General e
outsi
Assembly by
de a
adopting the i
colo
United Nations n
nial
Declaration on d
cont
the rights of i
ext;
319
g e
e ,
n n
o o
u r
s
i
p s
e
o t
p h
l e
e r
s e
t a
h n
e
i a
r c
k
o n
w o
n w
l
p e
o d
l g
i m
c e
e n
t
a o
n f
d t
h
i e
n
t r
e i
r g
n h
a t
l o
f
s i
e n
c d
u i
r g
i e
t n
y o
u
f s
o
r p
c e

o people” is no Israel’s
p longer in issue. obligation to
l Such existence respect that
e has moreover right. (ICJ
s been recognized Advisory
by Israel in the Opinion on
t exchange of Legal
o letters. The Consequences
Court considers of the
t that those rights Construction
h include the right of a Wall in
e to self- the Occupied
determination, Palestinian
a as the General Territory, July
e Assembly has 9, 2004)
r recognized on a
i number of
a occasions. The
l route chosen for JURISDICTION
the wall gives OF STATES
domain and fence” expression in
atmospheric designed to de loco to the In Public
space. But what it facto annex the illegal measures International
upholds is the West Bank of taken by Israel Law, it is the
right of Israel. The with regard to right of a State
indigenous case was Jerusalem and to exercise
peoples to the submitted to the settlements. authority over
lands, territories the ICJ for an Also, there were persons and
and resources, advisory further things within
which they have opinion by the alterations to its boundaries
traditionally General the subject to
owned, occupied Assembly of demographic certain
or otherwise used the United composition of exceptions.
or acquired. Nations under the Occupied
(Province of North resolution ES- Palestinian Kinds of
Cotabato v. GRP, 10/14. Did Territory jurisdictions
ibid.) Israel resulting from
undermine the the construction
Q: In 1947, the right of self- of the wall as it
UN made the determination is contributing
border between of the people to the departure
Israel and of Palestine of Palestinian
Palestine known when it population from
as the Green created the certain areas.
Line. Following wall? That
the Palestinian construction,
Arab violence in A: YES. along with
2002, Israel Construction of measures taken
began the the wall previously, has
construction of severely
been said to
the barrier that impedes the
severely impede
would separate exercise by the
the exercise by
West Bank from Palestinian
the Palestinian
Israel. people of its
people of its
Palestinians right to self-
right to self-
insisted that the determination.
determination,
fence is an and is therefore
“apartheid The existence of
a breach of
a “Palestinian
321
im 6. Continental ;
mi shelf – the a
1. Personal gra coastal state n
jurisdiction – the tio has the d
power exercised n sovereign right d. und
by a state over its or to explore the er
nationals san continental the
2. Territorial ita shelf and to doct
jurisdiction – ry exploit its rine
jurisdiction of a reg natural of
state over all ula resources and hot
persons and tio for this purpose purs
property within ns it may erect on uit
its jurisdiction wit it such
3. Land jurisdiction hin installations 9. Aerial
– jurisdiction its and equipment jurisdiction –
over everything ter as may be local state has
found within the rit necessary jurisdiction
terrestrial ory 7. Patrimonial Sea over the
domain of the or – also known as airspace
state ter exclusive above it to an
4. Maritime and rit economic zone; unlimited
fluvial jurisdiction ori all living and height
– the internal al non-living 10. Other
waters of a state sea resources territories – a
are assimilated to ; found therein state may, by
the land mass and an belong virtue of
subjected to the d exclusively to customary or
same degree of b. pu the coastal state conventional
jurisdiction nis 8. Open seas – a international
exercised over h state may law, extend its
the terrestrial inf exercise jurisdiction
domain (i.e. rin jurisdiction on beyond its
enclosed waters ge the open seas in territory and
such as the land- me the ff: over territory
locked lakes, nt a. over not falling
national rivers of its under its
and man-made the vessel sovereignty
canals) ab s; [Cruz,
5. Contiguous zone – ov b. over International
states have e pirate Law (2003
claimed reg s; Ed.), p. 125-
“protective ula c. in 140]
jurisdiction” over tio the
contiguous zone ns exe BASIS
or a zone of the wit rci OF JURISDICTION
high seas hin se
contiguous to its its of
territorial sea to: ter the
a. prev rit rig
ent ory ht
infri or of
nge ter vis
ment rit it
of its ori an
custo al d
ms, sea sea
fiscal rch
,

TERRITORIALITY PRINCIPLE 28, 1996)
A state has absolute, but not necessarily

exclusive, power to prescribe, adjudicate and
enforce rules of conduct that occurs within its
territory. (2005, 2009 Bar)
NOTE: An aspect of this principle is the “Effects

Doctrine” – which provides that a state has
jurisdiction over acts occurring outside its
territory but having effects within it.
Nationality Doctrine
A State may exercise jurisdiction over its

nationals, with respect to their conduct, whether
within or outside its territory.
NATIONALITY AND STATELESSNESS
NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
It is membership in a political community with all

its concomitant rights and obligations. It is the tie
that binds the individual to his State, from which
he can claim protection and whose laws he is
obliged to obey.
NOTE: Citizenship has a more exclusive meaning

in that it applies only to certain members of the
State accorded more privileges than the rest of
the people who owe it allegiance. Its significance
is municipal, not international.
Multiple Nationality
It is the possession by an individual of more than

one nationality. It is acquired as the result of the
concurrent application to him of the conflicting
municipal laws of two or more States claiming
him as their national.
STATELESSNESS
It is the condition or status of an individual who is

either:
1. De jure stateless person – Stripped of his

nationality by their former government and
without having an opportunity to acquire
another; or
2. De facto stateless person – One who possesses
a nationality whose country does not give
him protection outside his own country and
who is commonly referred to as refugee.
(Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123755, June
Consequences of Statelessness (1995 Bar) 1. Freedom of religion;
1. Access to the courts;
1. No State can intervene or 1. Rationing of products in short supply;
complain in behalf of the 1. Elementary education;
Stateless person for an 1. Public relief and assistance;
international delinquency 1. Labor legislation; and,
committed by another State in 1. Social Security.
inflicting injury upon him;
2. He cannot be expelled by the NOTE: They also agree to accord them treatment
State if he is lawfully in its not less favorable than that accorded to aliens
territory except on grounds of generally in the same circumstances. The
national security or public Convention also provides for the issuance of
order (1994 Bar); and identity papers and travel documents to the
3. He cannot avail himself of the Stateless persons.
protection and benefits of
citizenship like securing for Status of foundlings under Philippine laws
himself a passport or visa and
personal documents. As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class,
natural-born citizens. While the 1935
Rights of stateless persons Constitution's enumeration is silent as to
foundlings, there is no restrictive language which
A Stateless person is not entirely would definitely exclude foundlings either. The
without right, protection or deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional
recourse under the Law of Nations. Convention show that the framers intended
Under the Convention in Relation to foundlings to be covered by the enumeration,
the Status of Stateless Persons, the pursuant to the amendment proposed by Sr.
contracting States agree to accord Rafols. Though the Rafol’s amendment was not
the stateless persons within their carried out, it was not because there was any
territories treatment at least as objection to the notion that persons of "unknown
favorable as that accorded their parentage" are not citizens but only because their
nationals with respect to: number was not enough to merit specific
mention.
It states that an individual may be compelled
to retain his original nationality
Foundlings are likewise citizens under notwithstanding that he has already
international law. The common thread of the renounced it under the law of another State
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United whose nationality he has acquired.
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Doctrine of Effective Nationality
Rights obligates the Philippines to grant
nationality from birth and ensure that no child is A person having more than one nationality
stateless. This grant of nationality must be at the shall be treated as if he had only one – either
time of birth, and it cannot be accomplished by the nationality of the country in which he is
the application of our present naturalization laws. habitually and principally resident or the
nationality of the country with which in the
Furthermore, the principles stated in Art. 14 of circumstances he appears to be in fact most
the 1930 Hague Convention on Certain Questions closely connected.
Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws under
which a foundling is presumed to have the NOTE: Also known as Nottebohm principle
nationality of the country of birth. While the or the Genuine Link Doctrine. (International
Philippines is not a party to the Hague Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v. Guatemala,
Convention, it is a signatory to the Universal 1955)
Declaration on Human Rights, which effectively
affirms Art. 14 of the 1930 Hague Convention. Doctrine of Genuine Link
(Poe v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016)
It states that the bond of nationality must be
Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance real and effective in order that a State may
claim a person as its national for the purpose
of affording him diplomatic protection.
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness of
Measures states have taken to prevent 1961 provides that if the law of the contracting
statelessness States results in the loss of nationality, as a
consequence of marriage or termination of
In the Convention on the Conflict of Nationality marriage, such loss must be conditional upon
Laws of 1930, the Contracting States agree to possession or acquisition of another nationality.
accord nationality to persons born in their
territory who would otherwise be stateless. The PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE
Any State has the right to punish acts even if

committed outside its territory, when such acts
constitute attacks against its security, as long as
that conduct is generally recognized as criminal
by states in the international community (2009
Bar).
e.g: plots to overthrow the government, forging

its currency, and plot to break its immigration
regulations.
UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE
Certain offenses are so heinous and so widely

condemned that any state that captures an
offender may prosecute and punish that person
on behalf of the international community
regardless of the nationality of the offender or
victim or where the crime was committed (2005
Bar).
Q: Prior to the outbreak of WWII, Adolf

Eichmann was an Austrian by birth who
volunteered to work for the Security Service
in Berlin. He rose through the ranks and
eventually occupied the position of Referant
for Jewish Affairs. He oversaw the transport
and deportation of Jewish persons and
explored the possibility of setting up a slave
Jewish state in Madagascar.
He was captured by Israeli Security Forces in

Argentina and handed over to the District
Court of Jerusalem to stand for war crimes
against humanity and crimes against the
Jewish people. He was convicted of all 15
counts and sentenced to death.
Does the District Court of Jerusalem have

jurisdiction to try the case in light of the fact
that Eichmann is a foreign national and crimes
were committed on foreign territory?
A: YES. The principle of territorial sovereignty

merely requires that the State exercises its power
to punish within its own borders, not outside
them; that subject to this restriction every State
may exercise a wide discretion as to the
application of its laws and the jurisdiction of its courts in respect of acts committed outside the
State; and that only in so far as it is possible to diplomatic and consular agents in the Philippines”,
point to a specific rule prohibiting the exercise of exempts the person of any
this discretion. That view was based on the
following two grounds: (1) It is precisely the
conception of State sovereignty which demands
the preclusion of any presumption that there is a
restriction on its independence; and (2) Even if it
is true that the principle of the territorial
character of criminal law is firmly established in
various States, it is no less true that in almost of
such States criminal jurisdiction has been
extended so as to embrace offenses committed
outside its territory.
However, it is the universal character of the

crimes in question which vests in every State the
power to try those who participated in the
preparation of such crimes, and to punish them
therefor. It follows that the State which
prosecutes and punishes a person for that offense
acts solely as the organ and agent of the
international community, and metes out
punishment to the offender for his breach of the
prohibition imposed by the law of nations.
(Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v.
Eichmann, Israel Sup. Ct. 1962)
PASSIVE PERSONALITY PRINCIPLE
It authorizes states to assert jurisdiction over

offenses committed against their citizens abroad.
It recognizes that each state has a legitimate
interest in protecting the safety of its citizens
when they journey outside national boundaries.
EXEMPTIONS FROM JURISDICTION
ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE
A State should not inquire into the legal validity of

the public acts of another State done within the
territory of the latter. (Nachura, 2009)
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND ITS

OFFICERS
Exceptions to the territoriality principle:

1. Foreign states, heads of states, diplomatic
representatives, and consuls to a certain
degree;
NOTE: RA No. 75, entitled “An Act to penalize

acts which would impair the proper
observance by the Republic and inhabitants
of the Philippines of the immunities, rights
and privileges of duly accredited foreign
ambassador or public minister Extra-territoriality principle
of any foreign state from
criminal jurisdiction in the The exemption of foreign persons from the
Philippines. [Agpalo, Public jurisdiction of the State of residence and it arises
International Law (2006 Ed.), p. from treaty provisions.
280]
DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR LAW
2. Foreign state property,
including embassies, consulates, Right of legation/ Right of Diplomatic
and public vessels engaged in Intercourse
non- commercial activities;
3. Acts of state; It is the right of the state to send and receive
4. Foreign merchant vessels diplomatic missions, which enables states to
exercising the rights of innocent carry on friendly intercourse. It is governed by
passage or arrival under stress; the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
5. Foreign armies passing through (1961).
or stationed in its territories
with its permission; The exercise of this right is one of the most
Such other persons or property, effective ways of facilitating and promoting
including organizations like the intercourse among nations. Through the active
United Nations, over which it right of sending diplomatic representatives and
may, by agreement, waive the passive right of receiving them, States are able
jurisdiction [Cruz, International to deal more directly and closely with each other
Law (2003 Ed.), p. 127] in the improvement of their mutual intercourse.
NOTE: The principle underlying NOTE: As the right of legation is purely

immunity of organizations is the consensual, the State is not obliged to maintain
assurance of unimpeded diplomatic relations with other States.
performance of their functions
by the agencies concerned. If it wants to, a State may shut itself from the rest
of the world, as Japan did until the close of the
19th century.
Disadvantage: A policy of isolation would hinder
the progress of a State since it would be denying 1. Represent sending State in receiving
itself of the many benefits available from the State;
international community. 2. Protect in receiving State interests of
sending State and its nationals;
Agents of diplomatic intercourse 3. Negotiate with government of receiving
State;
1. Head of State; 4. Promote friendly relations between
2. Foreign secretary or minister; sending and receiving States and
3. Members of diplomatic service; developing their economic, cultural, and
4. Special diplomatic agents appointed by head scientific relations;
of the State; and, 5. Ascertain by all lawful means conditions
5. Envoys ceremonial. and developments in receiving State and
reporting thereon to government of
Diplomatic Corps sending State; and,
6. In some cases, Represent friendly
It is a body consisting of the different diplomatic governments at their request.
representatives who have been accredited to the
same local or receiving State. It is headed by a Classes of heads of a diplomatic mission
doyun de corps, who, by tradition, is the oldest
member within the highest rank or, in Catholic 1. Ambassadors or nuncio- accredited to
countries, the papal nuncio. Heads of State and other heads of
missions of equivalent rank;
Functions of a diplomatic mission (Re-P-Pro- 2. Envoys ministers and internuncios-
N- A-R) accredited to heads of State; and,
3. Charge d’ affaires- accredited to ministers
of foreign affairs.
NOTE: The appointment of diplomats is not Persona non grata

merely a matter of municipal law because the
receiving State is not obliged to accept a In international law and diplomatic usage means
representative who is a persona non grata to it. a person not acceptable (for reasons peculiar to
Indeed, there have been cases when duly himself) to the court or government to, which it is
accredited diplomatic representatives have been proposed to accredit him in the character of an
rejected, resulting in strained relations between ambassador or minister.
the sending and receiving State.
Agreation
It is a practice of the States before appointing a

particular individual to be the chief of their
diplomatic mission in order to avoid possible
embarrassment.
It consists of two acts:
1. The inquiry, usually informal, addressed by

the sending State to the receiving State
regarding the acceptability of an individual to
be its chief of mission;and
2. The agreement, also informal, by which the
receiving State indicates to the sending State
that such person, would be acceptable.
Letter of Credence
It is the document by which the envoy is

accredited by the sending State to the foreign
State to which he is being sent. It designates his
rank and the general object of his mission, and
asks that he be received favorably and that full
credence be given to what he says on behalf of his
State.
Letter Patent
The appointment of a consul is usually evidenced

by a commission, known sometimes as letter
patent or letred’provision, issued by the
appointing authority of the sending State and
transmitted to the receiving State through
diplomatic channels.
DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (2001, 2005 Bar)

Nature
Diplomatic immunity is essentially a political

question and the courts should refuse to look
beyond the determination by the executive
branch.
Q: Besides the head of the mission, who can

enjoy diplomatic immunities and privileges?
A: Diplomatic suite or retinue which consists of:
1. Official staff- itis made up of the commercial activity exercised by the

administrative and technical personnel of the
mission, including those performing clerical
work, and the member of their respective
families; and,
2. Non-official staff- composed of the

household help, such as the domestic
servants, butlers, and cooks and chauffeurs
employed by the mission.
NOTE: As a rule, however, domestic servants

enjoy immunities and privileges only to the
extent admitted by the receiving State and insofar
as they are connected with the performance of
their duties.
Privileges and immunities of diplomatic

mission
1. Personal inviolability – Members of

diplomatic mission shall not be liable for any
form of arrest or imprisonment;
2. Inviolability of premises – Premises,
furnishings and means of transport shall be
immune from search, seizure, attachment or
execution;
3. Archives or documents shall be inviolable;
4. Diplomatic agents are immune from
criminal, civil or administrative liability;
5. Receiving State shall protect official
communication and official
correspondence of diplomatic mission;
6. Receiving State shall ensure all members of
diplomatic mission freedom of movement
and travel;
7. A diplomatic agent is exempted to give
evidence as a witness;
8. Exemption from general duties and taxes
including custom duties with certain
exceptions;
9. Use of flag and emblem of sending State on
premises of receiving State.
Exceptions:
1. Any real action relating to private

immovables situated in the territory of the
receiving State unless the envoy holds the
property in behalf of the sending State;
2. Actions relating to succession where
diplomatic agent is involved as executor,
administrator, heirs or legatee as a private
person and not on behalf of the sending State;
and,
3. An action relating to any professional or
diplomatic agent in the them for trial and punishment for the crime
receiving State outside his they may have committed?
official functions.
A: The Philippine courts can take jurisdiction
Modes of waiving diplomatic over the Consul but not over the Ambassador. The
immunity and privileges Ambassador is immune from prosecution for all
crimes committed by him whether officially or in
1. Expressly by the sending State; or, his private capacity. The consul is immune from
2. Impliedly, as when the person criminal prosecution only for acts committed by
entitled to the immunity from him in connection with his official functions.
jurisdiction commences
litigation in the local courts and Q: The Ambassador of State X to the
thereby opens himself to any Philippines bought, in the name of his
counterclaim directly government, two houses and lots at Forbes
connected with the principal Park, Makati. One house is used as the
claim. chancery and residence of the ambassador,
and the other as quarters for nationals of
NOTE: Waiver of immunity from State X who are studying in the University of
jurisdiction with regard to civil and Santo Tomas. The Registrar of Deeds refused
administrative proceedings shall to register the sale and to issue Transfer
not be held to mean implied waiver Certificates of Title in the name of State X on
of the immunity with respect to the the ground of the prohibition of the
execution of judgment, for which a Constitution against the alienation of lands in
separate waiver shall be necessary. favor of aliens. Is his refusal justified?
Q: The U.S. Ambassador from the A: The prohibition in the Constitution against
Philippines and the American alienation of lands in favor of aliens does not
Consul General also in the apply to alienation of the same in favor of foreign
Philippines quarreled in the governments to be used as chancery and
lobby of Manila Hotel and shot residence of its diplomatic representatives. The
each other. May Philippine receiving State is under obligation to facilitate the
courts take jurisdiction over acquisition on its territory, in accordance with its
laws, by the sending State of premises necessary ADB and the Philippine Government. As a
for its mission, or to assist the latter in obtaining result, the judge dismissed the cases filed
accommodation in some other way. Therefore, against the petitioner. However, upon
the refusal of the Register of Deeds to register the petition for certiorari and mandamus
sale and the issuance of TCT in the name of State before the RTC, the decision of the lower
X is unjustified. court was reversed and set aside. Is
Huefeng covered by immunity provided
However, in so far as the house and lot to be used under the agreement?
as quarters of the nationals of State X who are
studying in the University of Santo Tomas are A: NO. He cannot invoke his immunity under
concerned, the Register of Deeds correctly the agreement. Under the Agreement, the
refused registration. Here, the prohibition in the immunity mentioned therein is not absolute,
constitution against the transfer of properties to but subject to the exception that the act was
parties other than the Filipino citizens or done in "official capacity."
corporation 60% of the capital of which is owned
by such citizens should be followed. Slandering a person could not possibly be
covered by the immunity agreement because
Q: Huefeng is an economist working with the our laws do not allow the commission of a
Asian Development Bank (ADB). He was crime, such as defamation, in the name of
charged with grave oral defamation before the official duty. It is well- settled principle of law
MeTC for allegedly uttering defamatory words that a public official may be liable in his
to his co-worker. The MeTC judge received an personal private capacity for whatever
"office of protocol” from the DFA stating that damage he may have caused by his act done
petitioner is covered by immunity from legal with malice or in bad faith or beyond the
process under the Agreement between the scope of his authority or jurisdiction(Liang vs.
People, G.R. No. 125865, Jan. 28, 2000).
clause does not ipso facto result in the dropping
NOTE: Courts cannot blindly adhere and take on of the charges. (Liang vs. People, G.R. No. 125865,
its face the communication from the DFA that January 28, 2000)
petitioner is covered by any immunity. The DFAs
determination that a certain person is covered by Exequatur (1991 Bar)
immunity is only preliminary which has no
binding effect in courts. xxx At any rate, it has An authorization from the receiving State
been ruled that the mere invocation of the admitting the head of a consular post to the
immunity exercise of his functions. Thus, an appointee
cannot start performing his function unless the
receiving State issues an exequatur to him.
Diplomats vs. Consuls
They are concerned with

Diplomats political relations of States.
They are not concerned with
political matters and attend
Consuls rather to administrative and
economic issues.
Kinds of consuls
1. Consules missi – Professional or career

consuls who are nationals of the sending
State and are required to devote their full
time to the discharge of their duties; and,
2. Consules electi – May or may not be nationals
of the sending State and perform their
consular functions only in addition to their
regular callings
NOTE: Examples of regular callings include acting

as notary, civil registrar and similar
administrative capacities and protecting and
assisting the nationals of the sending State.
Ranks of consuls
1. Consul-general – Heads several consular

districts, or one exceptionally large consular
district;
2. 2. Consul – Takes charge of a small district or
town or port;
3. Vicconsul – Assist the consul; and
4. Consular agent – Usually entrusted with the
performance of certain functions by the
consul.
Duties of consuls (P-Ob- Prom-Is-Su)
1. Protection of the interests of the sending

State and its nationals in the receiving State;
2. Promotion of the commercial, economic, cultural, and scientific relations of the sending and
receiving States;
3. Observation of the conditions and They are immune only with respect to that part
developments in the receiving State and where the consular work is being performed.
report the same to the sending State;
4. Issuance of passports and other travel Q: May consular offices be subject to
documents to nationals of the sending State expropriation by the receiving State?
and visas or appropriate documents to
persons wishing to travel to the sending A: YES, for purposes of national defense or public
State; and, utility.
5. Supervision and inspection of vessels and
aircraft of the sending State. NOTE: With respect to expropriation by the
receiving State, steps shall be taken to avoid
Sources of authority of consuls impeding the performance of consular
functions, and prompt, adequate and effective
1. Letter patent or letter ‘de provision – Which is compensation shall be paid by the sending
the commission issued by the sending State, State. (Art. 31 of the Vienna Convention on
and Consular Relations and Optional Protocols)
2. Exequatur – Which is the permission given
them by the receiving State to perform their Diplomatic Immunity vs. Consular Immunity
functions therein.
BASIS DIPLOMATI CONSULAR
Immunity of Consuls C
Premises of Consular
Consuls enjoy their own immunities and the mission premises
privileges but not to the same extent as those includes the includes the
enjoyed by the diplomats. Like diplomats, consuls building or buildings or
are entitled to: parts of parts of
building and buildings and
1. Inviolability of their correspondence, the land the land
Scope as to
archives and other documents irrespective irrespective of
buildings
2. Freedom of movement and travel of the ownership used
and
3. Immunity from jurisdiction for acts ownership exclusively for
performed in their official capacity; and premises
used for the the purposes of
4. Exemption from certain taxes and purpose of consular posts.
customs duties the mission
including the
Liabilities of Consuls residence of
the head of
1. Arrest and punishment for grave offenses; mission.
and GR: The GR: The agents
2. May be required to give testimony, subject to agents of the of the receiving
certain exceptions. receiving state may not
state may not enter the
NOTE: Members of a consular post are under no enter the consular
obligation to give evidence on the following premises of premises.
situations: the mission.
On entry of XPN: Consent
a. Concerning matters connected with the agents of XPN: Consent of the head of
exercise of their functions; the of the head of the consular
b. To produce official correspondence and receiving the mission. post.
documents; and, state Consent is
c. To give evidence as expert witness with assumed in case
regard to the law of the sending State of fire or other
disasters
Immunity of consular offices requiring
prompt
protective
action.
Personal Consular bag
2. A consular officer does not enjoy immunity
baggage of a shall not be
diplomatic opened. It may from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving
State and are not amenable to the jurisdiction
agent shall be requested
not be that the bag be of the judicial or administrative authorities of
the receiving State in respect of acts
opened. opened in their
presence by an performed in the exercise of consular
functions.
authorized
As to representative However, this does not apply in respect of a civil
inviolabilit action either:
of the receiving
y 1. Arising out of a contract concluded by a
state if they
consular officer in which he did not enter
have serious
expressly or impliedly; and
of reason to
2. By a third party for damages arising from an
baggage believe that the
accident in the receiving State caused by a
bag contains
vehicle, vessel or aircraft. (Vienna Convention
objects of other
on the Consular Relations, Arts. 41 and 43)
articles,
documents,
Grounds for Termination of Consular Office
correspondenc
e or articles. (2D-2W-RN)
Not obliged May be called
to give upon to attend 1. Death of consular officer
As a evidence as a as a witness; if 2. Recall
witness witness. declined, no 3. Dismissal
before coercive 4. Notification by the receiving State to the
sending State that it has ceased to consider as
measure or
member of the consular staff
the court penalty may be
applied. 5. Withdrawal of his exequatur by the receiving
State.
6. War – outbreak of war between his home
Differences in the privileges or immunities of
State and the receiving State.
diplomatic envoys and consular officers from
the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the
Immunity of International Organizations
receiving State
Q: Trade Union of the Philippines and Allied
1. A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from
Services (TUPAS) filed with then Ministry of
the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State.
Labor and Employment a Petition for
He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and
Certification Election among the rank and file
administrative jurisdiction; while
members employed by International Catholic
XPNs: Migration Commission (ICMC), an
international organization rendering
a. A real action relating to private immovable
voluntary humanitarian services in the
property situated in the territory of the
Philippines. ICMC opposed the petition of
receiving State, unless he holds it on behalf of
TUPAS on the ground that it is an
the sending State for the purpose of the
international organization registered with the
mission;
United Nations, hence, enjoys diplomatic
b. An action relating to succession in which the
immunity.
diplomatic agent is involved as executor,
Meanwhile, the Philippine Government and
administrator, heir or legatee as private
the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations signed a
person and not on behalf of the sending State;
Memorandum of Understanding establishing
and
the International Rice Research Institute
c. An action relating to any professional or
(IRRI), which was intended to be an
commercial activity exercised by the
autonomous, philanthropic, tax-free, non-
diplomatic agent in the receiving State
profit, non-stock organization designed to
outside of his official functions. (Vienna
carry out the principal objective of conducting
Convention of Diplomatic Relations, Art. 31)
basic research on rice plant. IRRI has an
existing local union, the Kapisanan ng
Manggagawa at TAC sa IRRI (Kapisanan),
which filed a petition for direct certification
election with the DOLE. The latter dismissed
the petition on the ground that Pres. Decree

No. 1620 conferred upon it the status of an DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
international organization and granting it
immunity from all civil, criminal and Grounds for termination of diplomatic
administrative proceedings under Philippine relations under municipal law (RADAR)
laws. Do ICMC and IRRI enjoy diplomatic
immunity? 1. Resignation;
2. Accomplishment of the purpose;
A: YES. P.D. 1620 is constitutional. There can be 3. Death;
no question that diplomatic immunity has been 4. Abolition of the office; and
granted to ICMC and IRRI. The grant of immunity 5. Removal.
from local jurisdiction to ICMC and IRRI is clearly
necessitated by their international character and Grounds for termination of diplomatic
respective purposes. The objective is to avoid the relation under international law
danger of partiality and interference by the host
country in their internal workings. The exercise 1. War – Outbreak between the sending and the
of jurisdiction by the Department of Labor in receiving State;
these instances would defeat the very purpose of 2. Extinction of either the sending State or the
immunity, which is to shield the affairs of receiving State; and
international organizations, in accordance with 3. Recall – Demanded by the receiving State
international practice, from political pressure or when the foreign diplomat becomes persona
control by the host country to the prejudice of non grata
member States of the organization, and to ensure
the unhampered performance of their functions. Termination of diplomatic relations does not
(ICMC vs. Calleja, G.R. No. 85750, Sept. 28, 1990) terminate consular relations between the
sending and receiving States
NOTE: There are basically three propositions
underlying the grant of international immunities Consuls belong to a class of State agents distinct
to international organizations. These principles, from that of diplomatic officers. They are not
contained in the ILO Memorandum are stated clothed with diplomatic character and are not
thus: 1) international institutions should have a accredited to the government of the country
status which protects them against control or where they exercised their consular functions;
interference by any one government in the they deal directly with local authorities
performance of functions for the effective
discharge of which they are responsible to They do not represent their State in its relations
democratically constituted international bodies in with foreign States and are not intermediaries
which all the nations concerned are represented; through whom matters of State are discussed
2) no country should derive any national financial between governments. Consuls look mainly after
advantage by levying fiscal charges on common the commercial interest of their own State in the
international funds; and 3) the international territory of a foreign State.
organization should, as a collectivity of States
members, be accorded the facilities for the GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TREATY LAW
conduct of its official business customarily
extended to each other by its individual member Treaty (2003 Bar)
States. The theory behind all three propositions is
said to be essentially institutional in character. "It A treaty is generally defined as agreements
is not concerned with the status, dignity or between and among States, by which parties
privileges of individuals, but with the elements of obligate themselves to act, or refrain from acting,
functional independence necessary to free according to the terms of the treaty.
international institutions from national control
and to enable them to discharge their However, under the Vienna Convention on the
responsibilities impartially on behalf of all their Law of Treaties (VCLT), a treaty has been defined
members. The raison d'etre for these immunities as “an international agreement concluded
is the assurance of unimpeded performance of between States in written form and governed by
their functions by the agencies concerned. (ICMC international law, whether embodied in a single
vs. Calleja, G.R. No. 85750, September. 28, 1990) instrument or in two or more related instruments
and whatever its particular designation.”
Essential Characteristics of Treaties functions. It usually concerns the regulation of
a
1. It becomes binding on the parties to it by virtue
of their consent; and
2. While treaties will, in most cases, be written

instruments concluded between States, the
term applies equally to unwritten agreements
and to agreements between States and
international organizations and between
international organizations.
Many treaties, particularly those of a multilateral

nature designed to establish general rules of
common application, exhibit a mixture of
‘legislative’ characteristics. A provision of a treaty
may:
1. Purport to codify existing rules of

customary law, e.g. Art. 55 of the 1982
Convention on the Law of the Sea which
provides for the recognition of the EEZ;
2. Crystallize a developing rule of law,
firmly establishing a legal footing a
situation which has previously been part
of the practice of a limited number of
States; or
3. Generate rules of law independently of
the previous practice of State, e.g.
prohibition on the threat or use of force
in international relations.
Two kinds of a treaty
1. Law-making treaties (normative treaties); and

2. Treaty contracts
Law-making treaties or Normative Treaties
Treaties which are concluded by a large number

of States for purposes of:
1. Declaring, confirming, or defining there

understanding of what the law is on a
particular subject;
2. Stipulating or laying down new general rules
for future international conduct; and
3. Creating new international institutions.
It lays down rules of general or universal

application and are intended for future and
continuing observance.
Treaty Contracts
Resemble contracts in that they are concluded to

perform contractual rather than normative
narrow area of practice between two States (e.g. ground of the law of treaties, it covers the most
trade agreements). Such treaties may lead to the important areas and is the indispensable starting
formation of general international law through the point for any description of the law. For good
operation of the principles governing the reason, the VCLt has been called the treaty on
development of customary rules in the following treaties.
ways:
It was adopted on May 22, 1969 and opened for
1. A series of treaties each of which lay down signature on May 23, 1969. The Convention
similar rule may produce a rule of customary entered into force on January 27, 1980.
international law to the same effect.
2. A rule contained in a treaty originally concluded Scope
between a limited number of parties may
subsequently be accepted or imitated as a 1. The VCLT sets out the law and procedure for
general rule. the making, operation, and termination of a
3. A treaty may have evidential value as to the treaty;
existence of a rule which has crystallized into
law by an independent process of development. 2. It does not apply to all treaties, only those
between States (Art. 1 VCLT). Nor is it concerned
VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES with the substance of a treaty as such. That is a
(VCLT) (2012 Bar) matter for the negotiating States;
The law of treaties is the body of rules which govern 3. The VCLT as a treaty does not apply
what is a treaty, how it is made and brought into retroactively to treaties concluded before its
force, amended, terminated, and generally operates. entry into force. Only rules in the VCLT that
Apart from issues of jus cogens, it is not concerned codify or reflect rules of CIL apply; and
with the substance of a treaty (the rights and
obligations created by it), which is known as treaty 4. Because the VCLT resulted from a codification
law. Although the VCLT does not occupy the whole project, many of its rules are consistent with
otherwise applicable rule of CIL.
of international law. It is all encompassing as it even
imposes obligations on a State in the pre-ratification stage.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF
TREATIES It applies throughout the life of a treaty, form its negotiation,
through its performance to its termination.
1. The principle of free consent – A state
cannot be bound by treaty to which it has not Each time a State is in breach of the principle of pacta sunt
consented. Free consent is vital for initial servanda it also violates the principle of good faith.
adoption and subsequent development of a
particular treaty as it ensures that a State Essential requisites of a valid treaty
remains in control of the commitments it has
made under the relevant treaty; 1. It must be a written instrument or instruments
2. The principle of pacta sunt servanda – between two or more parties;
Literally means agreements must be kept. 2. The parties must be States within the meaning of
Embodied in Art. 26 VCLT, which states that; international law (IL);
‘Every treaty in force is binding upon the 3. It must be governed by IL; and
parties to it and must be performed by them 4. It must be intended to create legal obligations.
in good faith. Therefore, a contracting party
will be held responsible for breach of a Exclusions
treaty.’ Applies only to treaties which are in
force, not to invalid, suspended or terminated 1. Those concluded between states and other subjects of IL;
treaties; and 2. Agreements not in writing; and
3. The principle of good faith – Recognized as 3. Those which are governed by the national law system chosen
the foundation of international legal order. by the parties.
States and non-State actors are required to
comply with binding obligations imposed
upon them by international law, irrespective
of whether such obligations derive from
treaties, customary rules, or any other source
Usual steps in the treaty- agreement, valid and binding on the part of the
making process (NeS-RA- Philippines. This means it forms part of Philippine
ER) law by virtue of transformation.
1. Negotiation – Conducted by the The involvement of the Senate in the treaty-

parties to reach an agreement making process manifests the adherence of the
on its terms; Philippine system of government to the principle
2. Signature – The signing of the of checks and balances. This indispensable
text of the instrument agreed participation of the legislative branch by way of
upon by the parties; concurrence provides the “check” to the
3. Ratification – The act by which ratification of the treaty by the executive branch.
the provisions of a treaty are
formally confirmed and In contrast, Section 25, Article XVIII is a special
approved by the State; provision that applies to treaties which involve
the presence of foreign military bases, troops or
NOTE: In our jurisdiction, the facilities in the Philippines. Under this provision,
power to ratify is vested in the the concurrence of the Senate is only one of the
President. The role of the Senate is requisites to render compliance with the
limited only to giving or constitutional requirements and to consider the
withholding its consent, or agreement binding on the Philippines. Section 25,
concurrence, to the ratification. Article XVIII further requires that "foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities" may be
There are two constitutional allowed in the Philippines only by virtue of a
provisions that require the treaty duly concurred in by the Senate, ratified by
concurrence of the Senate on a majority of the votes cast in a national
treaties or international referendum held for that purpose if so required
agreements Section 21, Article VII by Congress, and recognized as such by the other
deals with treaties or international contracting state. (BAYAN vs. Zamaora, G.R. No.
agreements in general, in which 138570, October 10, 2000)
case, the concurrence of at least
two-thirds (2/3) of all the Members 4. Accession – A State can accede to a treaty only
of the Senate is required to make if invited or permitted to do so by the
the subject treaty, or international contracting parties. Such invitation or
permission is usually given in the accession Signature does not, however, create an
clause of the treaty itself; obligation to ratify.
5. Exchange of instruments of ratification; and
6. Registration with the United Nations. b. In the case of a treaty which is only to
become binding upon ratification,
acceptance or approval, that treaty,
Traditional methods of expressing consent to unless declaratory of customary law,
a treaty will not be enforceable against a party
until one of those steps is taken; and
1. Signature – The legal effects of signature are
as follows: c. Where a treaty is not subject of
ratification, acceptance or approval, but
a. The signing of a treaty may represent a State’s signature will signify consent
simply an authentication of its text. Where to be bound. The consent of a State to
signature is subject to ratification, be bound by a treaty is expressed by the
acceptance or approval, signature does not signature of its representatives when:
establish consent to be bound;
i. The treaty provides that signature
NOTE: The act of signing a treaty creates an shall have that effect;
obligation of good faith on the part of the ii. It is otherwise established that the
signatory: to refrain from acts calculated to negotiating states were agreed
frustrate the objects of the treaty and to that signature should have that
submit the treaty to the appropriate effect; or
constitutional machinery for approval. iii. The intention of the State to give
effect to the signature appears from
the full powers of the representative a. Ratification in municipal law – is the
or was expressed during the formal act of the appropriate organ of
negotiations. the State effected in accord with
national constitutional law.
2. Ratification – A formal act whereby one State b. Ratification in international law –
declares its acceptance of the terms of the treaty Ratification is a procedure which brings
and undertakes to observe them. Ratification is a treaty into force for the State
used to describe two distinct procedural acts: concerned by establishing its definitive
consent to be bound by the particular
treaty. International law is not
concerned with the requirements of its
constitutional law.
NOTE: Despite the fact that a treaty may be

ratified by nothing more than the signature of the
relevant State’s representative, in many case
States insist upon a ratification procedure
consisting of more formal steps.
Ratification is so required when under Art.

14(1) of the VCLT:
1. A treaty provides for such consent to be

expressed by means of ratification;
2. It is otherwise established that the negotiating
States were agreed that ratification should be
required;
3. The representative of the State has signed the
treaty subject to ratification; or
4. The intention of the State to sign the treaty
subject to ratification appears from the full
powers of its representative or was expressed
during the negotiation.
Accession or adherence or adhesion
Occurs when a State, which did not participate in

the negotiating and singing of the relevant treaty,
formally accepts its provisions. It may occur
before or after a treaty has entered into force. It is
only possible if it is provided for in the treaty, or
if all the parties to the treaty agree that the
acceding State should be allowed to accede.
Q: A petition for mandamus was filed in the SC

to compel the Office of the Executive Secretary
and the Department of Foreign Affairs to
transmit (even without the signature of the
President) the signed copy of the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court
(ICC) to the Senate of the Philippines for its
concurrence or ratification – in accordance
with Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution.
Petitioners contend that ratification of a

treaty, under both domestic law and
international law, is a function of the Senate.
That under treaty law and customary signatory may be bound by a treaty
international law, Philippines has a
ministerial duty to ratify the Rome Statute.
Respondents on the other hand, argued that
executive department has no duty to transmit
the Rome Statute to the Senate for
concurrence. Decide.
A: The power to ratify treaties does not belong to

the Senate.
Under the Constitution the power to ratify is

vested in the President subject to the concurrence
of the Senate. The President has the discretion
even after the signing of the treaty by the
Philippine representative whether or not to ratify
a treaty. The signature of the representative does
not signify final consent, it is ratification that
binds the state to the provisions of the treaty and
renders it effective.
The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or

withholding its consent, concurrence to the
ratification. It is within the President to refuse to
submit a treaty to the Senate or having secured
its consent for its ratification, refuse to ratify it.
Such decision is within the competence of the
President alone, which cannot be encroached by
this Court via writ of mandamus. (Pimentel v.
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005)
The House of Representatives (HoR) cannot take

active part in the conduct of foreign relations,
particularly in entering into treaties and
international agreements. As held in US v. Curtiss
Wright Export Corporation (299 US 304), it is the
President alone who can act as representative of
the nation in the conduct of foreign affairs.
Although the Senate has the power to concur in
treaties, the President alone can negotiate
treaties and Congress is powerless to intrude into
this.
NOTE: However, if the matter involves a treaty or

an executive agreement, the HoR may pass a
resolution expressing its views on the matter.
Protocol de Clôture
It is a final act and an instrument which records

the winding up of the proceedings of a diplomatic
conference and usually includes a reproduction of
the texts of treaties, conventions,
recommendations and other acts agreed upon
and signed by the plenipotentiaries attending the
conference.
Instances when a third State who is a non-

negotiating States may agree;or,
2. Failing any such provision or agreement, a
1. When a treaty is a mere formal treaty enters into force as soon as consent to
expression of customary be bound by the treaty has been established
international law, which, as for all the negotiating States.
such is enforceable on all
civilized states because of their NOTE:
membership in the family of GR: A State may not invoke the fact that its
nations; consent to the treaty was obtained in violation of
2. Under Art. 2 of its charter, the its internal law.
UN shall ensure that non-
member States act in XPN: If the violation was manifest and concerned
accordance with the principles a rule of its internal law of fundamental
of the Charter so far as may be importance.
necessary for the maintenance
of international peace and A violation is manifest if it would be objectively
security. Under Art. 103, evident to any State conducting itself in the
obligations of member-states matter in accordance with normal practice and in
shall prevail in case of conflict good faith.
with any other international
agreement including those Reservation
concluded with non-members;
3. The treaty itself may expressly It is a unilateral statement, however phrased or
extend its benefits to non- named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying,
signatory States; and accepting, approving, or acceding to a treaty,
4. Parties to apparently unrelated whereby it purports to exclude or modify the
treaties may also be linked by legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in
the most-favored nation clause. their application to that State.
Effectivity date of a treaty Reservation is NOT applicable when:
1. In such manner and upon such 1. The treaty itself provides that no reservation
date as it may provide or as the shall be admissible;
2. The treaty allows only specified reservations extent of the reservation.
which do not include the reservation in
question; and, Judicial Review of Treaties
3. The reservation is incompatible with the
object and purpose of the treaty. Even after ratification, the Supreme Court has
the power of judicial review over the
Effects of Reservation and of Objections to constitutionality of any treaty, international or
Reservations executive agreement and must hear such case
en banc.
1. Modifies, for the reserving State in its
relations with that other party, the provisions Rules in case of conflict between a treaty
of the treaty to which the reservation relates and a custom
to the extent of the reservation;
2. Modifies those provisions to the same extent 1. If the treaty comes after a particular
for that other party in its relations with the custom- treaty prevails, as between the
reserving State; parties to the treaty
3. The reservation does not modify the 2. If the custom develops after the treaty-
provisions of the treaty for the other parties custom prevails it being an expression of a
to the treaty inter se; and later will.
4. When a State objecting to a reservation has
not opposed the entry into force of the treaty A treaty or conventional rule may not
between itself and the reserving State, the qualify as a norm of jus cogens character
provisions to which the reservation relates
do not apply as between the two States to the Treaty rule binds only States that are parties
to it and even in the event that all States are
parties to a treaty, they are entitled to terminate EXECUTIVE
or withdraw from the treaty. AGREEMENT
It involves These are
NOTE: If a treaty at the time of its conclusion, basic political adjustments
conflicts with jus cogens, it is void. (2008 Bar) issues and of details in
changes in carrying out
As to nature
Treaty vs. Executive Agreement (2015 Bar) national well
policy. established
national
BASIS TREATY policies.
Permanent Merely
As to
international temporary
permanence agreements. arrangements.
It needs the It needs no
Concurrence concurrence concurrence
of Senate of the Senate. from the
Senate.
Q: Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement

(EDCA) authorizes the U.S. military forces to
have access to and conduct activities within
certain "Agreed Locations" in the country. It
was not transmitted to the Senate on the
Executive's understanding that to do so was
no longer necessary. Accordingly, in June
2014, the DFA and the U.S. Embassy
exchanged diplomatic notes confirming the
completion of all necessary internal
requirements for the agreement to enter into
force in the two countries. Is the Executive
branch of government correct?
A: YES. The EDCA need not be submitted to the

Senate for concurrence because it is in the form of
a mere executive agreement, not a treaty. Under
the Constitution, the President is empowered to
enter into executive agreements on foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities if (1) such
agreement is not the instrument that allows the
entry of such and (2) if it merely aims to
implement an existing law or treaty.
EDCA is in the form of an executive agreement

since it merely involves “adjustments in detail” in
the implementation of the Mutual Defense Treaty
and the Visiting Forces Agreement. These are
existing treaties between the Philippines and the
U.S. that have already been concurred in by the
Philippine Senate and have thereby met the
requirements of the Constitution under Art XVIII,
Sec 25. Because of the status of these prior
agreements, EDCA need not be transmitted to the
Senate. (Saguisag v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.
212426, January 12, 2016)
Applicable rules when there is conflict

between a treaty and a domestic legislation
to the State’s treaty-making power and must be
The rule will depend on which court is deciding.
1. International Court - will uphold treaty

obligation in general.
NOTE: However, Art. 46 of the VCLT states that:
a. A State may not invoke the fact that its consent

to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in
violation of a provision of its internal law
regarding competence to conclude treaties as
invalidating its consent unless that violation was
manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law
of fundamental importance.
b. A violation is manifest if it would be objectively
evident to any State conducting itself in the
matter in accordance with normal practice and in
good faith.
2. Domestic Court
a. Treaty vs. Constitution – The Constitution will
always prevail.
b. Treaty vs. Statute - When the two instruments
relate to the same subject, try to give effect to
both; if inconsistent, legal techniques on
statutory construction would be employed. Some
of such rules say that the “later in time prevails”
or that the “specific law prevails over the
general”.
Modification of a treaty
GR: A treaty may not be modified without the

consent of all the parties.
XPN: If allowed by the treaty itself, two states

may modify a provision only insofar as their
countries are concerned.
Grounds of nullity affecting the consent of a

party to a treaty
1. Corruption of a representative of a State –

‘corruption’ must be a ‘substantial influence. A
small courtesy or favor shown to a
representative will be insufficient;
2. Coercion of a representative of a State – it
must be directed at the representative
personally or his/her family;
3. Coercion of a State – it must be shown that the
conclusion of a treaty has been procured by
the threat or use of force;
4. Fraud;
5. Manifest violation of its internal law – the
alleged violation of a domestic law must
concern fundamental provisions which relate
evident to any State acting by with that rule becomes void and terminates.
normal practice and good faith;
6. Essential error – an error, Grounds for the suspension of a treaty
whether unilateral or mutual,
must neither concern a question A treaty may be suspended in six situations. Two
of law nor the wording of text of of them are:
a treaty agreed by the parties. It
must relate to a fact or situation 1. Where all contracting parties agree to suspend
which was assumed at the time the operation of a treaty, or some of its
when a treaty was concluded provisions;
and formed an essential basis of
its consent. Further, a State will 2. Where to or more parties agree to suspend its
not be able to claim error if by operation temporarily between themselves
its own conduct it contributed provided this is either allowed under the relevant
to it; and treaty or not prohibited.
7. Violations of restrictions on the
competence of the NOTE: The remaining situations are set out in
representative of a State – the Articles 59-62 of the VCLT and are the same as for
restrictions on the competence termination of a treaty
must have been notified to the
other parties. Grounds for termination of a treaty
Grounds of nullity which lead to A party in the following situations has a choice
nullity of a treaty for all either to suspend or terminate the relevant treaty:
contracting parties
1. Material breach of a treaty
1. A treaty is void if at the time of 2. Impossible for a party to perform its obligations
its conclusion it conflicts with a rule 3. Rebus sic stantibus
of jus cogens; 4. All contracting parties to an earlier treaty are
also parties to a later treaty and the two treaties
2. If a new jus cogens emerges, any relate to the same subject matter.
existing treaty which is in conflict
NOTE: Additionally a treaty can be terminated:
1. When the termination of a treaty is in obligations to be executed to the extent of
accordance with the terms of the treaty. rendering performance essentially different
2. Parties to the relevant treaty agreed to from the original intention.
terminate the treaty.
3. If the treaty is in conflict with a just cogens rule. Requisites of rebus sic stantibus (Not-IR,
Must- URIS)
Termination vs. Suspension
1. The change must not have been caused by
When a treaty is suspended, it is still valid but its the party Invoking the doctrine;
operation is suspended temporarily, either for all 2. The doctrine cannot operate
the parties or some of them. On the other hand, Retroactively, i.e., it must not adversely
when a treaty is terminated, it is no longer in affect provisions which have already been
force as it has ended its existence. complied with prior to the vital change in
the situation;
Doctrine of rebus sic stantibus 3. The change must have been Unforeseen or
unforeseeable at the time of the perfection
It states that a fundamental change of of the treaty;
circumstances which determined the parties to 4. The doctrine must be invoked within a
accept a treaty, if it has resulted in a radical Reasonable time;
transformation of the extent of the obligations 5. The duration of the treaty must be
imposed by it, may under certain conditions, Indefinite; and
afford the party affected a ground to invoke the 6. The change must be so Substantial that
termination of the treaty. the foundation of the treaty must have
altogether disappeared.
The change must have increased the burden of the
Limitation on the application of the principle
of rebus sic stantibus 2. The fundamental change is the result of a
breach by the party invoking it of an
The principle of rebus sic stantibus cannot be obligation under the treaty or of any other
invoked as a ground for terminating or obligation owed to any other party to the
withdrawing from a treaty if: treaty.
1. The treaty establishes a boundary; or DOCTRINE OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY
A State may be held responsible for an

international delinquency, directly or indirectly,
imputable to it which causes injury to the
national of another State. Liability will attach to
the State where its treatment of the alien falls
below the international standard of justice or
where it is remiss in according him the protection
or redress that is warranted by the
circumstances. (2010 Bar)
NOTE: No government can be held responsible

for the act of rebellious bodies of men committed
in violation of its authority, where it is itself guilty
of no breach of good faith, or of no negligence in
suppressing insurrection.
Elements of state responsibility
1. An act or omission in violation of

International Law
2. Attributable to the State
3. Causing damage to a third State either
directly or indirectly to a national of the third
State.
Kinds of state responsibility
1. Direct State responsibility – Where the

international delinquency was committed by
superior government officials or organs like
the chief of State or the national legislature,
liability will attach immediately as their acts
may not be effectively prevented or reversed
under the constitution or laws of the State.
2. Indirect State responsibility – Where the
offense is committed by inferior government
officials or by private individuals. The State
will be held liable only if, by reason of its
indifference in preventing or punishing it, it
can be considered to have connived in
effecting its commission.
Requisites for the enforcement of the doctrine

of State Responsibility (NER)
1. Nationality of the Claimant/The Doctrine of

Effective Nationality/The Genuine Link
Doctrine;
2. The injured alien must first Exhaust all local
remedies; and
3. He must be Represented in the international
claim for damages by his own State. licenses or trespassers on its territory;
2. A state engages in lawful activities, in which
Calvo Clause case responsibility may result from culpa in
executing these lawful activities;
A stipulation by which an alien waives or restricts 3. Determining the amount of damages; and,
his right to appeal to his own state in connection 4. Due diligence or liability for culpa is
with any claim arising from the contract and stipulated in a treaty.
agrees to limit himself to the remedies available
under the laws of the local state. Motive (intent) is relevant when:
NOTE: This cannot be interpreted to deprive the 1. The existence of a deliberate intent to injure
alien’s state of the right to protect or vindicate his may have an effect on the remoteness of the
interests in case they are injured in another state, damage and may help to establish the breach
as such waiver can legally be made not by the of duty; and
alien but by his own state. 2. Motive and intent may be a specific element
in defining permitted conduct.
Elements of an Internationally Wrongful Act
(AB) Relief available where a State is liable for an
internationally wrongful act
1. Act or omission is Attributable to the State
under international law; and 1. Declaratory relief – Declaration by a court
2. Constitutes a Breach of an international that as to the illegality of an act constitutes a
obligation of the State. measure of satisfaction or reparation in the
broad sense;
NOTE: Every internationally wrongful act of a
State entails the international responsibility of NOTE: Available when this is, or the parties
that State. deem this, the proper way to deal with a
dispute or when the object is not to give
Acts or situations attributable to the State satisfaction for the wrong received but only
to recognize the liability.
1. Acts of the State organs – Acts of State organs
in their capacity provided by law or under 2. Satisfaction – A measure other than
instructions of superiors; restitution or compensation which an
2. Acts of other persons – If the group of persons offending State is bound to take;
was in fact exercising elements of the
governmental authority in the absence or NOTE: Its object is often either:
default of the official authorities and a. An apology and other acknowledgment
circumstances such as to call for the exercise of wrongdoing;
of those elements of authority; and, b. Punishment of individuals concerned; or
3. Acts of revolutionaries – Conduct of an c. Taking of measures to prevent a
insurrectional movement which becomes the recurrence.
new government of a State or part of a State.
3. Restitution – Involves wiping out all the
Theory of Objective or Strict Liability consequences of the breach and re-
establishing the situation which would
With respect to state responsibility, the theory probably have existed had the act not been
provides that fault is unnecessary for State committed; or
responsibility to be incurred. Its requisites are:
1. Agency; and, NOTE: It can either be in the form of legal
2. Casual connection between the breach and restitution or specific restitution.
the act or omission imputable to the State.
a. Legal Restitution is declaration that an
Culpa (fault) is relevant when: offending treaty, law, executive act, or
agreement, is invalid.
1. The breach results from acts of individuals b. Specific Restitution is a restitution in kind
not employed by the state or from the or payment of a sum corresponding to
activities of the value of the restitution, and the
award for
losses sustained which would not be fear of persecution by reason of his race,
covered by the first two. religion, nationality, membership of a political
group or political opinion and is unable or,
4. Compensation – Payment of money as a because of such
valuation of the wrong done.
NOTE: The compensation must correspond

to the value which restitution in kind would
bear; the award of damages for loss sustained
which would not be covered by restitution in
kind or payment in place of it.
Pecuniary satisfaction vs. Compensation
BASIS PECUNIARY
COMPENSATION
SATISFACTION
A token of regret To make up for
and or repair the
As to acknowledgment damage done.
nature of wrongdoing
(“monetary
sorry”).
State’s exercise of diplomatic protection
When a State admits into its territory foreign

investments or foreign nationals, whether natural
or juristic persons, it is bound to extend to them
the protection of the law and assumes obligations
concerning the treatment to be afforded to them.
These obligations, however, are neither absolute

nor unqualified. An essential distinction should
be drawn between:
2. Obligations of the State towards the

international community as a whole -
concern of all States. All States can be held to
have a legal interest in their protection; they
are obligations erga omnes.
3. Obligations the performance of which is the

subject of diplomatic protection - cannot be
held, when one such obligation in particular
is in question, in a specific case, that all
States have a legal interest in its observance.
(Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light
and Power Company, Limited, February 5,
1970)
REFUGEES
Any person who is outside the country of his

nationality or the country of his former habitual
residence because he has or had well-founded
fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of
the government of the country of his nationality, or, if
he has no nationality, to return to the country of his
former habitual residence.
Elements before one may be considered as a refugee

(ONPer)
1. The person is Outside the country of his

nationality, or in the case of Stateless persons,
outside the country of habitual residence;
2. The person lacks National protection; and
3. The person fears Persecution in his own country.
NOTE: The second element makes a refugee a

Stateless person.
Refugees v. Internally displaced persons
Refugees are people who, owing to well-founded fear

of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion, are outside the country of his
nationality, are unable or owing to such fear, are
unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that
country, or who not having a nationality and being
outside the country of their former habitual
residence as a result of such events, are unable or,
owing to such fear are unwilling to return to it.
(United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of
Refugees, 1951 Sec. A par. 2)
While internally displaced persons are those who have

been forced to flee their homes, suddenly or
unexpectedly in large numbers as a result of armed
conflict, internal strife, systematic violation of human
rights, or natural or man-made disaster, and, who are
within their territory of their country. (Analytical
Report of the United Nations’ Secretary-General on
Internally Displaced Persons, February 14, 1992)
Principle of Non-Refoulment
Posits that a State may not deport or expel refugees

to the frontiers of territories where their life or
freedom would be put in danger or at risk.
(Magallona, 2005)
EXTRADITION
It is the surrender of an individual by the state within

whose territory he is found to the state under whose
laws he is alleged to have committed a crime or to
have been convicted of a crime.
Basis of extradition Procedure
The extradition of a person is required only if

there is a treaty between the State of refuge and
the State of origin. In the absence of such treaty,
the local state has every right to grant asylum to
the fugitive and not refuse to deliver him back to
the latter state even if he is its national. As a
gesture of comity, however, the surrender
requested is may still be effected by the state of
asylum. Furthermore, even with a treaty, crimes
which are political in character are exempted.
Fundamental Principles
1. Based on the consent of the State expressed

in a treaty (or manifested in an act of
goodwill);
2. Principle of specialty – A fugitive who is
extradited may be tried only for the crime
specified in the request for extradition and
included in the list of offenses in the
extradition treaty, unless the requested State
does not object to the trial of such person for
the unlisted offense (1993 Bar);
3. Any person may be extradited, whether he is
a national of the requesting State, of the State
of refuge or of another State. He need not be a
citizen of the requesting State;
4. Political or religious offenders are generally
not subject to extradition (2002 Bar); It has
been held that “in order to constitute an
offense of a political character, there must be
two or more parties in the state, each seeking
to impose the government of their own
choice. NOTE: Attentat clause is a provision in
an extradition treaty which states that the
murder of the head of state or any member of
his family is not to be regarded as a political
offense and therefore extraditable.
5. The offense must have been committed
within the territory of the requesting State or
against its interest; and
6. Double criminality rule – The act for which
the extradition is sought must be punishable
in both the requesting and requested States.
(1991, 2007 Bar)
Common bars to extradition
1. Failure to fulfill dual criminality;

2. Political nature of the alleged crime;
3. Possibility of certain forms of punishment;
4. Jurisdiction; and
5. Citizenship of the person in question.
1. File/issue request Extradition vs. Deportation (1993 Bar)
through diplomatic
representative with:
a. Criminal charge and warrant of arrest;
b. Recital of facts;
c. Text of applicable law
designating the offense;
d. Pertinent papers; and
e. Decision of conviction.
2. DFA forwards request to DOJ.

3. DOJ files petition for extradition with RTC.
4. Upon receipt of a petition for
extradition and its supporting
documents, the judge must
study them and make, as soon
as possible, a prima facie
finding whether:
a. They are sufficient in form and substance;
b. They show
compliance with the Extradition
Treaty and Law; and
c. The person sought is extraditable.
At his discretion, the judge may

require the submission of
further documentation or may
personally examine the affiants
and witnesses of the petitioner.
If, in spite of this study and
examination, no prima facie
finding is possible, the petition
may be dismissed at the
discretion of the judge.
5. On the other hand, if the

presence of a prima facie case
is determined, then the
magistrate must immediately
issue a warrant for the arrest of
the extraditee, who is at the
same time summoned to
answer the petition and to
appear at scheduled summary
hearings;
6. Hearing (provide counsel de
officio if necessary);
7. Appeal to CA within 10 days
whose decision shall be final
and executory;
8. Decision forwarded to DFA
through the DOJ; and
9. Individual placed at the
disposal of the authorities of
requesting State – costs and
expenses to be shouldered by
requesting State.
BASIS EXTRADITION DEPORTATION
Effected at the Unilateral act of
As to
request of the the local State.
authority
State of origin.
Based on Based on causes
offenses arising in the
As to
committed in local State.
cause
the State of
origin.
to the evidence against him?
Calls of the Undesirable
return of the alien may be A: It depends. During the executive phase of
As to fugitive to the deported to a an extradition proceeding, an extraditee does
effect State of origin. State other than not have the right of access to evidence in the
his own or the hands of the government. But during the
State of origin.
judicial phase he has. (Secretary v. Judge
Lantion, GR. No. 139465, October 17, 2000)
Due process in extradition proceeding
Q: Is a respondent in an extradition
proceeding entitled to notice and hearing
before the issuance of a warrant of arrest?
A: YES
1. On the Basis of the Extradition Law
Under Sec. 6 of P.D. 1069, Extradition Law uses

the word “immediate” to qualify the arrest of the
accused. Hearing entails sending notices to the
opposing parties, receiving facts and
arguments from them, and giving them time to
prepare and present such facts and
arguments. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no
longer be considered “immediate.” The law could
not have intended the word as a mere superfluity
but, on the whole, as a means of imparting a sense
of urgency and swiftness in the determination of
whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.
The court is expected merely to get a good first

impression, a prima facie finding, sufficient to
make a speedy initial determination as regards
the arrest and detention of the accused.
2. On the Basis of the Constitution
Even Sec. 2 of Art. III of our Constitution, does not

require a notice or a hearing before the issuance
of a warrant of arrest. To determine probable
cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the
Constitution itself requires only the examination,
under oath or affirmation, of complainants and
the witnesses they may produce. There is no
requirement to notify and hear the accused before
the issuance of warrants of arrest. (U.S. v.
Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002)
Q: Does an extraditee’s have a right of access

Nature of extradition proceeding
Requisites for granting bail in extradition
Extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a cases
criminal proceeding which will call into operation all
the rights of an accused as guaranteed by the Bill of The possible extraditee must show upon a clear
Rights. and convincing evidence that:
1. He will not be a flight risk or a danger to the
Validity of a petition for bail in extradition cases community; and,
2. There exist special, humanitarian
Sec. 11, Art. II of our Constitution provides: “The and compelling circumstances.
State values the dignity of every human person and
guaranteed full respect for human rights.” The Rights of a person arrested and detained in
Philippines, therefore, has the responsibility of another State
protecting and promoting the right of every person
to liberty and due process, ensuring that those 1. Right to have his request complied with by
detained or arrested can participate in the the receiving State to so inform the consular
proceedings before a court, to enable it to decide post of his condition;
without delay on the legality of the detention and 2. Right to have his communication addressed
order their release if justified. to the consular post forwarded by the
receiving State accordingly; and
The Philippine authorities are under obligation to 3. Right to be informed by the competent
make available to every person under detention such authorities of the receiving State without
remedies which safeguards their fundamental right delay his rights as mentioned above.
to liberty. These remedies include the right to be
admitted to bail. (Government of Hong Kong Special Q: Is the retroactive application of the
Administrative Region v. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, extradition treaty amounting to an ex post
April 19, 2007) facto law?
A: No. In Wright v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 1. First generation: traditional civil and political rights;
No.113213, August 15,1994, it was held that the 2. Second generation: economic, social and cultural rights; and
retroactive application of the Treaty of 3. Third generation: right to peace, clean environment, self-
Extradition does not violate the prohibition determination, common heritage of mankind, development,
against ex post facto laws, because the Treaty is minority rights.
neither a piece of criminal legislation nor a
criminal procedural statute. It merely provided Classification of Human Rights
for the extradition of persons wanted for offenses
already committed at the time the treaty was 1. Individual rights; and
ratified. 2. Collective rights (right to self-determination of people; the
permanent sovereignty over natural resources)
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW Main instruments of human rights
Human Rights 1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

2. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Those inalienable and fundamental rights which Cultural Rights; and
are essential for life as human beings. 3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its
two Optional Protocols.
International Human Rights Law
NOTE: The Philippines is a signatory to the International
The law which deals with the protection of Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
individuals and groups against violations by Workers and Members of Their Families. This instrument is a
governments of their internationally guaranteed multilateral treaty
rights, and with the promotion of these rights.
(Buergenthal)
NOTE: International human rights are divided

into 3 generations, namely:
governing the protection of migrant
workers and families. Concluded on A: No. It has no obligatory character because it
December 18, 1990, it entered into was adopted by the UN General Assembly as
force on July 1, 2003 after the Resolution 217 (III). As a resolution, it is merely
threshold of 20 ratifying states was recommendatory.
reached in March 2003. The
Committee on Migrant Workers Basic rights guaranteed by the UDHR
(CMW) monitors implementation of
the Convention and is one of the 1. All human beings are born free and equal in
seven UN-linked human rights dignity and rights;
treaty bodies. 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and
freedoms in this Declaration, without
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS distinction of any kind such as race, color, sex,
religion, property, or birth. No distinction
The basic international statement shall also be made on the basis of the political
of the inalienable rights of human or international status of a country or
beings. It is the first comprehensive territory to which a person belongs;
international human rights 3. Right to life, liberty and security of person;
instrument. It covers civil and 4. Right against slavery or servitude;
political rights, and economic, 5. Right against torture or to cruel, inhuman
social and cultural rights. and degrading treatment or punishment;
6. Right to be recognized everywhere as a
NOTE: Rights covered by UDHR are person before the law;
customary international law, hence, 7. Right to equal protection of the law;
even during the times when the bill 8. Right to an effective remedy before courts for
of rights under the Constitution are acts violating fundamental rights;
inoperative, rights under UDHR 9. Right against arbitrary arrest, detention or
remained in effect. (Republic v. exile;
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 104768, 10. Right to a fair and public hearing by an
July 21, 2003) independent and impartial tribunal;
11. Right to be presumed innocent until proven
Q: Is UDHR a treaty? guilty;
12. Right to privacy, family, home or 19. Right to freedom of opinion and
correspondence; expression;
13. Right to freedom of movement and residence; 20. Right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
right to leave any country, including one’s association; no one may be compelled to
own and to return to one’s own country; belong to an association;
14. Right to seek and enjoy in another country 21. Right to suffrage; right to take part in the
asylum from persecution; however, this may government of one’s country, directly or
not be invoked in the case of prosecutions through representatives; right of equal
genuinely arising from non-political crimes public service in one’s country;
or acts contrary to the principles of the 22. Right to social security;
United Nations; 23. Right to work/labor, free choice of
15. Right to a nationality and right against employment, just and favorable
arbitrary deprivation of such right; conditions of work; right to equal pay for
16. Right to marry, entered into freely and with equal work; right to form and join trade
full consent, without any limitation due to unions;
race, nationality or religion; entitled to equal 24. Right to rest and leisure, including
rights to marriage, during marriage and reasonable working hours and periodic
dissolution; the family is the natural and holidays with pay;
fundamental group of society and is entitled 25. Right to a standard of living adequate for
to protection by society and State.; the health and being of one’s self and his
17. Right to own property alone as well as in family; motherhood and childhood are
association with others; right against entitled to special care and assistance;
arbitrary deprivation of such property; 26. Right to education; and
18. Right to freedom of thought, conscience and 27. Right to freely participate in the cultural
religion; life of the community, enjoy the arts and
share in scientific advancement.
and respect of rights of others, for public order
Under the Declaration, everyone is entitled to a and general welfare.
social and international order in which the rights
and freedoms in this Declaration can be fully INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND
realized. The exercise of these rights and POLITICAL RIGHTS
freedoms are subject only to such limitations as
are determined by law, for the purpose of It is an international covenant and is binding on
recognition the respective state parties. It commits its parties
to respect the civil and political rights of
individuals. It includes the first generation of
human rights.
The substantive rights that are treated in the
covenant on Civil and Political Rights are found in
Articles 1, and 6 to 27.
1. Life
2. Liberty and property
3. Equality
Rights guaranteed in the International

Covenant on Civil and Political rights
1. Right to self-determination;
2. Right to an effective remedy;
3. Equal right of men and women to the
enjoyment of all the civil and political rights;
4. Right to life;
5. Not to be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. In particular, freedom from
medical or scientific experimentation except
with his consent (1992, 2010 Bar);
6. Freedom from slavery and servitude;
7. Right to liberty and security of person;
8. Right to be treated with humanity and with
respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person;
9. No imprisonment on the ground of inability
to fulfill a contractual obligation;
10. Right to liberty of movement and freedom to
choose his residence;
11. Right to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial
tribunal established by law;
12. No one shall be held guilty of an criminal
offense on account of any act or omission
which did not constitute a criminal office,
under national or international law, at the
time when it was committed;
13. Right to recognition everywhere as a person
before the law;
14. Right to privacy;
15. Right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion;
16. Right to freedom of expressions;
17. Right of peaceful assembly;
18. Right of freedom of association;
19. Right to marry and to found a family;
20. Right to such measures of protection as are 1. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever,
required by his status as a minor, name and whether a state of war or a threat or war,
nationality; internal political instability or any other
21. Right to participation, suffrage and access to public emergency or any order from a
public service; superior officer or a public authority may be
22. Right to equal protection of the law; and, invoked as a justification of torture;
23. Right of minorities to enjoy their own culture, 2. No State party shall expel, return (“refouler”)
to profess and practice their religion and to or extradite a person to another State where
use their own language. there are substantial grounds for believing
that he would be in danger of being subjected
NOTE: to torture;
GR: In times of public emergency which threatens 3. All acts of torture are offenses under a State
the life of the nation and the existence of which is Party’s criminal law;
officially proclaimed, parties may take measures 4. State Parties shall afford the greatest
to derogate from their obligations to the extent measure of assistance in connection with civil
strictly required by the exigencies of the proceedings brought in respect of any of the
situation. offences;
5. To ensure that education and information
XPNs: There can be no derogation from the regarding the prohibition against torture are
following: fully included on persons involved in the
custody, interrogation or treatment of any
1. Right to life individual subject to any form of arrest,
2. Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or detention, or imprisonment;
degrading punishment 6. To keep under systematic review
3. Freedom from slavery interrogation rules, instructions, methods
4. Freedom from imprisonment for failure to and practices as well as arrangements for the
fulfill a contractual obligation custody and treatment of persons subjected
5. Freedom from ex post facto laws to any form of arrest, detention or
6. Right to recognition everywhere as a person imprisonment in any territory under its
before the law jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any
7. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion case of torture;
7. To ensure a prompt and impartial
Torture investigation wherever there is reasonable
ground to believe that an act of torture has
Any act by which severe pain or suffering, been committed;
whether physical or mental, is intentionally 8. To ensure that an individual subjected to
inflicted on a person for such purposes as torture has the right complain and have his
obtaining from him or a third person, information case promptly and impartially examined by
or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a competent authorities;
third person has committed or is suspected of 9. To ensure that the victim obtains redress and
having committed, or intimidating or coercing has an enforceable right to fair and adequate
him or a third person, or for any reason based on compensation;
discrimination of any kind, when such pain or 10. To ensure that any statement established to
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or have been made as a result of torture shall
with the consent or acquiescence of a public not be invoked as evidence in any
official or other person acting in an official proceedings, except against a person accused
capacity. (United Nations Convention against of torture as evidence that the statement was
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading made; and
Treatment or Punishment [UNCTO] Effective June 11. To prevent in any territory under its
26, 1987) jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment which do
NOTE: It does not include pain or suffering not amount to torture when such acts are
arising only from, inherent in or incidental to committed by or at the instigation of or with
lawful sanctions. the consent of acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official
Obligations of the State Parties in the UNCTO capacity.
Instances when a state party may offenses regarding torture
establish its jurisdiction over
1. When the offenses are committed in any participating in the hostilities and restricts the
territory under its jurisdiction or on board a
ship or aircraft registered in the State;
2. When the alleged offender is a national of
that State;
3. When the victim was a national of that State if
that State considers it appropriate; and
4. Where the alleged offender is present in any
territory under its jurisdiction and it does not
extradite him.
NOTE: Nos. 1 to 3 are considered as extraditable

offences. In the absence of an extradition treaty,
the UNCTO may be considered as the legal basis
for extradition. Such offenses shall be treated, for
the purpose of extradition, as if they have been
committed not only in the place in which they
occurred but also in the territories of the State
required to establish their jurisdiction.
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC,

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS
It is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United

Nations General Assembly. It commits its parties
to work toward the granting of economic, social,
and cultural rights. It embodies the second
generation of human rights.
Rights guaranteed thereunder
1. Right to work (Art. 6)

2. Right to favorable conditions of work (Art. 7)
3. Right to form trade unions (Art. 8)
4. Right to social security and insurance (Art. 9)
5. Right to special assistance for families (Art.
10)
6. Right to adequate standard of living (Art. 11)
7. Right to the highest standard of physical and
mental health (Art. 12)
8. Right to education including compulsory
primary education (Arts. 13 and 14)
9. Right to enjoyment of cultural and scientific
benefits and international contacts (Art. 15)
10. Right to strike
11. Right to be free from hunger
12. Freedom of scientific research and creativity
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL

HUMANITARIAN LAW
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
A set of rules which seek, for humanitarian

reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It
protects persons who are not or are no longer
means and methods of warfare. This is used to be take part in hostilities are entitled to respect
known as the Laws of War which provides for for their lives and their moral and physical
instances when the use of armed force is justifiable integrity. They shall be protected and treated
(jus ad bellum) and regulates the conduct of armed humanely without any adverse distinction;
conflict (jus in bello). 4. It is prohibited to kill or injure an enemy who
surrenders or who is a hors de combat;
Importance of IHL 5. The wounded and the sick shall be protected
and cared for by the party who is in custody
It is one of the most powerful tools the international of them. Protection shall cover medical
community has at its disposal to ensure the safety personnel, establishments, transports and
and dignity of people in times of war. It seeks to equipment; and
preserve a measure of humanity, with the guiding 6. Parties who captured civilians and
principle that even in war there are limits. combatants shall respect the latter’s rights to
life, dignity, and other personal rights.
Fundamental principles of IHL
Essential rules of IHL
1. Parties to armed conflict are prohibited from
employing weapons or means of warfare that 1. The parties to a conflict must at all times
cause unnecessary damage or excessive distinguish between the civilian population
suffering (Principle of prohibition of use of and combatants;
weapons of a nature to cause superfluous injury 2. Neither the civilian population as a whole nor
or unnecessary suffering); individual civilians may be attacked;
2. Parties to armed conflict shall distinguish 3. Attacks may be made sole against military
between civilian populace from combatants and objectives;
spare the former from military attacks (Principle 4. People who do not or can no longer take part
of distinction between civilians and combatants); in the hostilities are entitled to respect for
3. Persons hors de combat and those who do not their lives and for their physical and mental
integrity and must be treated with humanity,
without any unfavorable distinction

whatever; Application of IHL
5. It is forbidden to kill or wound an adversary
who surrenders or who can no longer take IHL concerns two situations:
part in the fighting; 1. International armed conflicts, which involve at least two
6. Neither the parties to the conflict nor countries; and
members of their armed forces have an 2. Armed conflicts that take place in one country (such as
unlimited right to choose methods and means those between a government and rebel forces).
of warfare;
7. It is forbidden to use weapons or methods of NOTE: IHL applies to all parties to a conflict regardless of who
warfare that are likely to cause unnecessary started it.
losses and excessive suffering;
8. The wounded and sick must be collected and “New” conflicts covered by the IHL
cared for by the party to the conflict which
has them in its power; 1. Anarchic conflicts – It is a situation where armed groups take
9. Medical personnel and medical advantage of the weakening or breakdown of the State
establishments, transports and equipment structures in an attempt to grab power; and
must be spared. The red cross or red crescent 2. Those in which group identity becomes a focal point – These
is the distinctive sign indicating that such groups exclude the adversary through “ethnic cleansing” which
persons and objects must be respected; and consists in forcibly displacing or even exterminating
10. Captured combatants and civilians who find populations. This strengthens group feeling to the detriment of
themselves under the authority of the the existing national identity, ruling out any possibility of
adverse party are entitled to respect for their coexistence with other groups.
lives, their dignity, their personal rights and
their political, religious and other convictions
and must be protected against all acts of
violence or reprisals; entitled to exchange of
news with their families and receive aid and
enjoy basic judicial guarantees.
Branches of IHL up in arms for the purpose of overthrowing
1. Law of Geneva – Designed to the legitimate government.
safeguard military personnel
who are no longer taking part Persons protected under IHL
INTERNATIONAL
in the fighting and people not HUMAN RIGHTS
HUMANITARIAN
actively participating in the IHL protects those who are not, or no longer,
LAW
war. LAW participating in hostilities, such as:
Application 1. Civilians;
Situations
Essence of Geneva of armed
Convention Applicable at all times 2. Medical and religious military personnel;
conflict only. in war and peace alike. 3. Wounded, shipwrecked and sick combatants;
Persons notPermissibility
actively engaged of derogation
in and
warfare No derogations
should be are Some human rights
treated 4. Prisoners of war.
humanely. Thepermitted underto IHL
rules apply any treaties permit
internationalbecause
armed it conflict,was governments to
NOTE: Recognizing their specific needs, IHL
conceived
whether a declared war or not. for derogate from certain grants women and children additional protection.
emergency situations rights, in situations of
namely
NOTE: It includes the: armed public emergency. Protection under IHL
conflict.
a. Wounded and Sick in the Field;
Purpose
b. Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked at Sea; 1. IHL prohibits the use of weapons which are
Aims of War;
c. Prisoners to and protect Tailored primarily for particularly cruel, or which do not distinguish
people who do not or peacetime,and applies between combatants and civilians.
d. Civilians.
are no longer taking to everyone. Their 2. The parties to a conflict are required to:
2. Law of thepart in hostilities.
Hague The principal goal is to a. Distinguish between combatants and
– Establishes
rules
the rights and embodied in IHL
obligations of protect individuals civilians, and to refrain from attacking
impose
belligerents duties
in the on all
conduct of from arbitrary civilians;
military parties of a conflict.
operations, and limits behavior by their own b. Care for the wounded and sick and
the means of harming the governments. protect medical personnel;
enemy. Consequence to states c. Ensure that the dignity of prisoners of
Obliges states to take States are bound by war and civilian internees is preserved
NOTE: practical and legal
Belligerents are human rights law to by allowing visits by International
measures,
inhabitants of a Statesuchwho riseas accord national law Committee of the Red Cross delegates.
enacting penal with international
International
legislation Humanitarian Law (IHL) vs.
and obligations.
Human Rights Law role is to enhance the
disseminating IHL. effectiveness of the
Applicable mechanisms UN human
Provides for several Implementing rights
mechanisms that help mechanisms are machinery and to
its implementation. complex and, contrary build up national,
Notably, states are to IHL include regional and
required to ensure regional systems. international capacity
respect also by other Supervisory bodies, to promote and
states. Provision is e.g. the UN protect human rights
also made for inquiry Commission on and to disseminate
procedure, a Human Rights human rights texts
Protecting Power (UNCHR), are either and information.
mechanism, and the based on the UN Human rights also
International Fact- Charte or provided for provide for the
Finding Commission. in specific treaties. establishment of
In addition, the committees of
International The UNCHR have independent experts
Committee of the Red developed a charged with
Cross (ICRC) is given mechanism of special monitoring their
a key role in ensuring rapporteurs and implementation.
respect for the working groups, Certain regional
humanitarian rules. whose task is to treaties (European
monitor and report on and American) also
human rights establish human
situations either by rights courts.
country or by topic. Its
2. Non-International Armed Conflict –
NOTE: IHL and International human rights law between governmental authorities and
(hereafter referred to as human rights) are organized armed groups or between such
complementary. Both strive to protect the lives, groups within a State.
health and dignity of individuals, albeit from a
different angle. NOTE: It does not cover internal disturbances or
tensions such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts
CATEGORIES OF ARMED CONFLICT of violence or other acts of a similar nature (R.A.
9851).
Kinds/types of conflict as contemplated in R.A.
9851 3. War of National Liberation– an armed
struggle waged by a people through its
1. International Armed Conflict – between two liberation movement against the
or more States including belligerent established government to reach self-
occupation. determination.
It is also used to denote conflicts in which peoples Refers to any person who:
are fighting against colonial domination and alien 1. Is in the power of an adverse party to the conflict
occupation and against racist regimes in the 2. Has clearly expressed an intention to surrender; and
exercise of their right of self-determination, as Has been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by
enshrined in the U.N. Charter and the Declaration wounds or sickness and therefore is incapable of defending
of Principles of International Law. [Protocol I, Art. himself provided he abstains away from any hostile act and
1(4)] does not attempt to escape (R.A. 9851)
INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT Protected persons in an armed conflict
Armed conflict under IHL and R.A. 9851 1. A person wounded, sick or shipwrecked, whether
civilian or military;
1. “All cases of declared war or any other armed 2. A prisoner of war or any person deprived of liberty for
conflict which may arise between two or reasons related to an armed conflict
more of the Highest contracting parties, even
if the State of war is not recognized by one of
them” (Geneva Convention of 1949, Art. 2). It
also applies to armed conflict between the
government and a rebel or insurgent
movement (Geneva Convention of 1949, Art.
3).
2. Under R.A. 9851, it is any use of force or
armed violence between States or a
protracted armed violence between
governmental authorities and organized
groups or between such groups within a State
provided that it gives rise or may give rise to a
situation to which the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949 including their common Art.
3 apply.
Instances not covered by an armed conflict
It does not include internal disturbances or

tensions such as:
1. Riots;
2. Isolated and sporadic acts of violence;
and
3. Other acts of a similar nature.
Hors de combat
3. A civilian or any person not personnel carrying out functions similar
taking a direct part or to religious personnel.
having ceased to take part
in the hostilities in the NOTE: In such situations, the Geneva Conventions
power of the adverse and Additional Protocol I, which calls for the
party; protection of wounded and sick soldiers, medical
4. A person who, before the personnel, facilities and equipment, wounded and
beginning of hostilities, sick civilian support personnel accompanying the
was considered a stateless armed forces, military chaplains and civilians who
person or refugee under spontaneously take up arms to repel an invasion,
the relevant international apply.
instrument accepted by the
parties to the conflict INTERNAL OR NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED
concerned or under the CONFLICT
national legislation of the
state of refuge or state of Inapplicability of IHL in internal disturbance
residence;
5. A member of the medical Internal disturbances and other situations of
personnel assigned internal violence are governed by the provisions
exclusively to medical of human rights law and such measures of
purposes or to the domestic legislation as may be invoked. IHL does
administration of medical not apply to situations of violence not amounting
units or to the operation of in intensity to an armed conflict.
an administration of
medical transports; or Applicability of IHL in non-international
6. A member of the religious armed conflicts
personnel who is
exclusively engaged in the IHL is intended for the armed forces, whether
work of their ministry and regular or not, taking part in the conflict, and
attached to the armed protects every individual or category of
forces of a party to the individuals not or no longer actively involved in
conflict, its medical units or the hostilities. e.g.: wounded or sick fighters;
medical transports or non- people deprived of their freedom as a result of the
denominational, non- conflict; civilian population; medical and religious
combatant military personnel.
c. Outrages against personal
dignity, in particular
Applicable rules in non-international armed humiliating and degrading
conflict treatment;
d. The passing of sentences and
1. Persons taking no active part in the the carrying out of executions
hostilities, including armed forces who without previous judgment
have laid down their arms and those pronounced by a regularly
placed hors de combat be treated constituted court, affording
humanely, without any adverse all the judicial guarantees
distinction founded on race, color, which are recognized as
religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or indispensable by civilized
any other similar criteria. To these end, peoples.
the following acts are and shall remain
prohibited at any time and any place 2. The wounded and sick shall be
whatsoever with respect to the collected and cared for.
abovementioned persons:
NOTE: An impartial humanitarian body, such
a. Violence to life and person, in as the International Committee of the Red
particular murder of all kinds, Cross, may offer its services to the parties to
mutilation, cruel treatment and the conflict.
torture;
b. Taking of hostages; WAR OF NATIONAL LIBERATION
Armed conflicts in which people are fighting Categories of wars of national liberation
against colonial domination and alien occupation
and against racist regimes in the exercise of their 1. Colonial domination;
right to self-determination [Protocol I, Art. 1(4)]. 2. Alien occupation; and
These are sometimes called insurgencies, 3. Racist regimes when the peoples oppressed
rebellions or wars of independence. by these regimes are fighting for self-
determination.
Basis
NOTE: The above listed enumeration is
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of EXCLUSIVE.
12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of
Victims of International Armed Conflicts. Effect of the protocol
(Protocol I, June 8 1977)
Armed conflicts that fall under the categories will
now be regarded as international armed conflicts
and thus fall under the International
Humanitarian Law.
War
A contention between two States, through their

armed forces, for the purpose of overpowering
the other and imposing such conditions of peace
as the victor pleases.
Instances when force is allowed
Under the UN Charter, the use of force is allowed

only in two instances, to wit:
1. In the exercise of the inherent right of self-

defense; and (1998, 2002, 2009 Bar); and
2. In pursuance of the so-called enforcement
action that may be decreed by the Security
Council.
Steps in the Commencement of a war
1. Declaration of war;
2. Rejection of an ultimatum; and
3. Commission of an act of force regarded by at
least one of the parties as an act of war.
Declaration of war
A communication by one State to another

informing the latter that the condition of peace
between them has come to an end and a condition
of war has taken place.
Ultimatum
A written communication by one State to another

which formulates, finally and categorically, the
demands to be fulfilled if forcible measures are to
be averted.
Effects of the outbreak of war

1. Laws of peace are superseded by the laws of
war; 3. The measures adopted must not be
2. Diplomatic and consular relations between excessive, in the sense of being out of all
the belligerents are terminated; proportion to the vocation received
3. Treaties of political nature are automatically
cancelled, but those which are precisely Retorsion (1991, 2010 Bar)
intended to operate during war such as one
regulating the conduct of hostilities, are It is an unfriendly act which may be taken by one
activated; and state against another. It may be in response to an
4. Enemy public property found in the territory internationally wrongful conduct or an unfriendly
of other belligerent at the outbreak of the act but which is nonetheless lawful.
hostilities is with certain exceptions, subject
to confiscation. (Any act taken in “retaliation where the acts
complained of do not constitute a legal ground of
NOTE: An army of occupation can only take offense but are rather in the nature of unfriendly
possession of the cash, funds, and property acts but indirectly hurtful to other states.”
liable to requisition belonging strictly to the (Fernwich, 532 as cited in Cruz, 2000)
State, depots of arms, means of transport,
stores and supplies, and, generally, all Elements:
movable property of the State which may be
used for military operations. Railway plant, 1. It is unfriendly;
land telegraphs, telephones, steamers, and 2. It is lawful; and
other ships, apart from cases governed by 3. It is remedial in character
maritime law, as well as depots of arms and,
generally, all kinds of war material, even Because the act is legitimate, no responsibility is
though belonging to companies or to private engaged in international law, and the state taking
persons, are likewise material which may the retorsion has a wide discretion as to what
serve for military operations, but they must unfriendly actions it may implement, and to what
be restored at the conclusion of peace, and extent. (Wallace-Brucem The Settlement of
indemnities paid for them. (Laws and International Disputes: The Contribution of
Customs of War on Land, Hague II July 29, Australia and New Zealand
1899, Art. 53) 1998)
Reprisal (1991 Bar) Tests in determining the enemy character of

individuals
Act of self-help on the part if the injured state,
responding after an unsatisfied demand to an act 1. Nationality test – If they are nationals of the
contrary to international law on the part of the other belligerent, wherever they may be;
offending state. 2. Domiciliary test – If they are domiciled aliens
in the territory of the other belligerent, on
A retaliatory action against an enemy in wartime. the assumption that they contribute to its
It is an otherwise illegal act done in response to a economic resources;
prior illegal act by an enemy, proportionate to the 3. Activities test – If, being foreigners, they
original wrong and designed to compel the enemy nevertheless participate in the hostilities in
to desist from his illegal acts on the battlefield. favor of the other belligerent;
Under such circumstances the law of armed 4. Territorial or Commercial Domicile Test – In
conflicts recognizes the otherwise illegal acts as matters referring to economic warfare; and
legal. (The Naulilaa Case, involving Portugal and 5. Controlling Interest Test – This test is applied
Germany) to corporation in addition to the place of
incorporation test. A corporation is
Conditions for legitimacy of reprisals considered as enemy if it:
a. is incorporated in an enemy territory; and
1. There must have been an illegal action on b. is controlled by individuals bearing
the part of the other state; enemy character.
2. They must be preceded by a request for
redress of the wrong; Principle of Distinction
Parties to an armed conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian and military
targets and that all military operations should
only be directed at military targets. Any person who does not belong to the armed
forces and who is not a combatant.
Participants in war
NOTE: In case of doubt whether a person is a
1. Combatants – Those who engage directly in civilian or not, that person shall be considered as
the hostilities, and a civilian.
2. Non-combatants – Those who do not, such as
women and children. Suspension of arms
Combatants A temporary cessation of hostilities by agreement

of the local commanders for such purposes as the
Those individuals who are legally entitled to take gathering of the wounded and the burial of the
part in hostilities. These include: dead.
1. Regular Forces (RF) – Members of the armed Armistice

forces except those not actively engaged in The suspension of hostilities within a certain area
combat. These are the army, navy, and air or in the entire region of the war, agreed upon by
force. Non-combatant members of the armed the belligerents, usually for the purpose of
forces include: chaplains, army services and arranging the terms of the peace.
medical personnel
2. Irregular Forces (IF) – Also known as Armistice vs. Suspension of arms
franctireurs consist of militia and voluntary
corps. These are members of organized SUSPENSION OF
BASIS ARMISTICE
resistance groups, such as the guerrillas. ARMS
They are treated as lawful combatants As to Political Military
provided that they are: purpose
a. Being commanded by a person As to Usually in May be oral.
responsible for his subordinates; form writing.
b. Wearing a fixed distinctive sign or some Only by the May be
As to who
type of uniform; commanders- concluded by the
may
c. Carrying arms openly; and in-chief local
conclude
d. Obeying the laws and customs of war. of the commanders.
belligerent
3. Non-privileged Combatants (NPC) – individuals governments.
who take up arms or commit hostile acts
against the enemy without belonging to the Ceasefire
armed forces or forming part of the irregular
forces. If captured, they are not entitled to the An unconditional stoppage of all hostilities
status of prisoners of war. usually ordered by an international body like the
4. Citizens who rise in a “levee en masse” – The United Nations Security Council for the purpose
inhabitants of unoccupied territory who, on of employing peaceful means of settling the
approach of the enemy, spontaneously take differences between the belligerents.
arms to resist the invading troops without
having time to organize themselves, provided Truce
only that they:
a. Carry arms openly; and Sometimes used interchangeably with armistice
b. Observe the laws and customs of war. but is now generally regarded as a ceasefire with
conditions attached.
5. The officers and crew members of merchant
vessels who forcibly resist attack. Capitulation
Civilian The surrender of military forces, places or

districts, in accordance with the rules of military
honor.
Basic principles that underlie the rules of

warfare
1. The Principle of Military Necessity – The
Where the territory of one belligerent State is
belligerent may employ any amount of force
occupied by the enemy during war, the legitimate
to compel the complete submission of the
government is ousted from authority. When the
enemy with the least possible loss of lives,
belligerent occupation ceases to be effective, the
time and money.
authority of the legitimate government is
automatically restored, together with all its laws,
NOTE: Under R.A. 9851, it is the necessity of
by virtue of the jus postliminium.
employing measures which is indispensable
to achieve a legitimate aim of the conflict and
Principle of Uti Possidetis
not prohibited by IHL.
Allows retention of property or territory in the
2. The Principle of Humanity – Prohibits the use belligerent’s actual possession at the time of the
of any measure that is not absolutely
cessation of hostilities.
necessary for the purpose of the war, such as
the poisoning of wells, destruction of works Jus ad bellum (Law on the use of force)
of art and property devoted to religious or
humanitarian purposes.
It seeks to limit resort to force between States.
States must refrain from the threat or use of force
3. The Principle of Chivalry – Prohibits the against the territorial integrity or political
belligerents from the employment of independence of another state. (UN Charter, Art.
treacherous methods in the conduct of 2, par. 4)
hostilities, such as the illegal use of Red Cross
emblems. XPNs:
1. Self-defense; or
4. The Principle of Proportionality – The legal 2. Following a decision adopted by the UN
use of force whereby belligerents must make Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN
sure that harm caused to civilians or civilian Charter.
property is not excessive in relation to the
concrete and direct military advantage from Status Quo Ante Bellum
an anticipated attack or by an attack on
military objective. Each of the belligerents is entitled to the territory
and property which it had possession of at the
War may be terminated by commencement of the war.
1. Simple cessation of hostilities, without the REPUBLIC ACT 9851 (PHILIPPINE ACT ON
conclusion of a formal treaty; CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL
2. Treaty of peace; HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE, AND OTHER
3. Unilateral declaration; and CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY)
4. The complete submission and subjugation of Effect/relevance of the passage of R.A .9851
one of the belligerents, followed by a dictated
treaty of peace or annexation of conquered R.A. 9851 mandates both the State and non-state
territory armed groups to observe international
humanitarian law standards and gives the victims
Postliminium of war-crimes, genocide and crimes against
humanity legal recourse.
It imports the reinstatement of the authority of
the displaced government once control of the State Policies under R.A. 9851
enemy is lost over the territory affected
1. The renunciation of war and adherence to a
Is that in which persons or things taken by the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
enemy are restored to the former state on coming cooperation and amity with all nations;
actually into the power of the nation to which 2. Values the dignity of every human person
they belong. and guarantees full respect of human rights;
3. Promotion of Children as zones of peace
Application of the Principle of Postliminium 4. Adoption of the generally accepted principles
(1979 Bar) of international law;
5. Punishment of the most serious crimes of
concern to the international community; and e. Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or
6. To ensure persons accused of committing other protected person of the rights of
grave crimes under international law all fair and regular trial;
rights for a fair and strict trial in accordance f. Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer
with national and international law as well as of population or unlawful confinement;
accessible and gender-sensitive avenues of g. Taking hostages;
redress for victims of armed conflicts. h. Compelling a prisoner of war or other
protected person to serve in the forces of
NOTE: The application of the provisions of this a hostile power; and
Act shall not affect the legal status of the parties i. Unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of
to a conflict, nor give an implied recognition of prisoners of war or other protected
the status of belligerency. persons.
Genocide 2. In case of non-international armed conflict,

serious violation of common Art. 3 to the four
1. Any of the following acts with intent to Geneva Conventions of August 12 1949,
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, namely any of the following acts committed
racial, religious, social or any other similar against persons taking no active part in the
stable and permanent group such as: hostilities, including members of the armed
a. Killing of members of the group; forces who have laid down their arms and
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to those placed hors de combat by sickness,
members of the group; wounds, detention or any other cause:
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group a. Violence to life and person, in particular,
conditions of life calculated to bring willful killings, mutilation, cruel
treatment and torture;
about its physical destruction in whole or
in part; b. Committing outrages upon personal
d. Imposing measure intended to prevent dignity, in particular humiliating and
births within the group; and degrading treatment;
c. Taking of hostages; and
e. Forcibly transferring children of the
group to another group. d. The passing of sentences and the
carrying out of executions without
2. Directly and publicly inciting others to commit previous judgment pronounced by a
genocide (R.A. 9851) regularly constituted court, affording all
judicial guarantees which are generally
NOTE: Genocide may be committed either during recognized as indispensable.
war or armed conflict or in times of peace.
3. Other serious violations of the laws and
War crimes customs applicable in the armed conflict
within the established framework of
It means grave breaches of the Geneva international law, namely:
Conventions of August 12, 1949, which are any of a. Intentionally directing attacks against the
the acts enumerated under Article 8 of the ICC civilian population as such or against
Statute against persons or property protected individual civilians not taking direct part
under the provisions of the relevant Convention. in hostilities;
b. Intentionally directing attacks against
1. Namely any of the following acts against civilian objects, that is, objects which are
persons or property protected: not military objectives;
a. Willful killing; c. Intentionally directing attacks against
b. Torture or inhuman treatment, including buildings, material, medical units and
biological experiments; transport, and personnel using the
c. Willfully causing great suffering, or distinctive emblems of Additional
serious injury to body or health; Protocol II in conformity with
d. Extensive destruction and appropriation international law;
of property not justified by military d. Intentionally directing attacks against
necessity and carried out unlawfully and personnel, installations, material, units or
wantonly; vehicles involved in a humanitarian
assistance or peacekeeping mission in
accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations as long as they are cause death to or seriously endanger the
entitled to the protection given to health of such person or persons;
civilians or civilian objects under the l. Killing wounding or capturing an
international law of armed conflict; adversary by resort to perfidy
e. Launching an attack in the knowledge
that such attack will cause incidental loss NOTE:Perfidy – A combatant’s conduct
of life or injury to civilians or damage to that creates the impression that an
civilian objects or widespread long-term adversary is entitled to, or is obliged to
and severe damage to the natural accord protection under international
environment which would be excessive law when in fact the conduct is use to
in relation to the concrete and direct gain an advantage (Black’s Law
military advantage anticipated; Dictionary).
f. Launching an attack against works or
installations containing dangerous forces m. Declaring that no quarter will be given;
in the knowledge that such attack will n. Destroying or seizing the enemy’s
cause excessive loss of life, injury to property unless such destruction or
civilians or damage to civilian objects, seizure is imperatively demanded by the
and causing death or serious injury to necessities of war;
body or health; o. Pillaging a town or place, even when
g. Attacking or bombarding, by whatever taken by assault;
means, towns, villages, dwellings or p. Ordering the displacement of the civilian
buildings which are undefended and population for reasons related to the
which are not military objectives, or conflict, unless the security of the
making non-defended localities or civilians involved or imperative military
demilitarized zones the object of attack; reasons so demand;
h. Killing or wounding a person in the q. Transferring, directly or indirectly, by
knowledge that he/she is hors de combat, occupying power of parts of its own
including a combatant who, having laid civilian population into the territory it
down his/her arms no longer having occupies, or the deportation or transfer
means of defense, has surrendered at of all or parts of the population of the
discretion; occupied territory within or outside this
i. Making improper use of a flag of truce, of territory;
the flag or the military insignia and r. Committing outrages upon personal
uniform of the enemy or of the United dignity, in particular, humiliating and
Nations, as well as of the distinctive degrading treatment;
emblems of the Geneva Conventions or s. Committing rape, sexual slavery,
other protective signs under the enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy,
International Humanitarian Law, enforced sterilization, or any other form
resulting in death, serious personal of sexual violence;
injury or capture; t. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or
j. Intentionally directing attacks against other protected person to render certain
buildings dedicated to religion, points, areas or military forces immune
education, art, science, or charitable from military operations;
purposes, historic monuments, hospitals u. Intentionally using starvation of civilians
and places where the sick and wounded as a method of warfare by depriving
are collected, provided that they are not them of objects indispensable to their
military objectives. survival, including willfully impending
k. Subjecting persons who are in the power relief supplies;
of an adverse party to physical mutilation v. In an international armed conflict,
or to medical or scientific experiments of compelling the nationals of the hostile
any kind, or to removal of tissue or party to take part in the operations of
organs for transplantation, which are war directed against their own country,
neither justified by the medical, dental or even if they were in the belligerent’s
hospital treatment of the person service before the commencement of the
concerned not carried out in his/her war;
interest, and which w. In an international armed conflict,
declaring abolished, suspended or
inadmissible in a court of law the rights
and actions of the nationals of the hostile ethnic,
party;
x. Committing any of the following acts:
i. Conscripting, enlisting or recruiting
children under the age of 15 years
into the national armed forces;
ii. Conscripting, enlisting, or recruiting
children under the age of 18 years
into an armed force or group other
than the national armed forces; and
iii. Using children under the age of 18
years to participate actively in
hostilities;
y. Employing means of warfare which are

prohibited under international law, such
as:
i. Poison or poisoned weapons;
ii. Asphyxiating, poisonous or other
gases, and all analogous liquids,
materials or devices;
iii. Bullets which expand or flatten
easily in the human body, such as
bullets with hard envelopes which
do not entirely cover the core or are
pierced with incisions; and
iv. Weapons, projectiles and material
and methods of warfare which are of
the nature to cause superfluous
injury or unnecessary suffering or
which are inherently indiscriminate
in violation of the international law
of armed conflict. (R.A .9851)
“Other crimes against humanity” aside from

war crimes and genocide under RA 9851
Any of the following acts when committed as part

of a widespread or systematic attack directed
against any civilian population, with knowledge
of the attack:
1. Murder
2. Extermination;
3. Enslavement;
4. Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer of
population;
5. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of
physical liberty in violation of fundamental
rules of international law;
6. Torture;
7. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution,
forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization or
any other form of sexual violence of
comparable gravity;
8. Persecution against any identifiable group or
collectivity on political, racial, national,
cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation 4. Captured combatants are entitled to respect
other grounds that are universally recognized as for their lives, dignity, personal rights and
impermissible under international law; convictions. They must be protected against
9. Enforced or involuntary disappearance of all acts of violence and reprisals. They must
persons; have the right to correspond with their
10. Apartheid; and families and to receive relief;
11. Other inhumane acts of similar character 5. Civilians under the authority of a party to the
intentionally causing great suffering, or serious conflict or an occupying power of which they
injury to body or to mental or physical health. are not nationals are entitled to respect for
(RA 9851) their lives, dignity, personal rights and
convictions;
CORE INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS OF 6. Everyone must be entitled to benefit from
STATES UNDER THE IHL fundamental judicial guarantees. No one must
be sentenced without previous judgment
1. The protection of persons who are not, or are no pronounced by a regularly constituted court;
longer, participating in hostilities; 7. No one must be held responsible for an act he
has not committed. No one must be subjected
2. Soldiers who surrender or who are hors de to physical or mental torture, corporal
combat are entitled to respect for their lives and punishment or cruel or degrading treatment;
their moral and physical integrity. It is forbidden 8. The right of parties to an armed conflict to
to kill or injure them; choose methods and means of warfare is not
3. The wounded and sick must be collected and unlimited;
cared for by the party to the conflict which has 9. Parties to a conflict and members of their
them in its power. Protection also covers medical armed forces do not have an unlimited choice
personnel, establishments, transports and of methods and means of warfare. It is
equipment. The emblem of the red cross, red prohibited to employ weapons or methods of
crescent or red crystal is the sign of such warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary
protection and must be respected; losses or excessive suffering; and
10. Parties to a conflict must at all times PRISONERS OF WAR

distinguish between the civilian population
and combatants in order to spare civilian Those lawful combatants who have fallen into the power of the
population and property. Adequate enemy.
precautions shall be taken in this regard
before launching an attack. Rights and privileges of prisoners of war
PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY OR MARTENS 1. To be treated humanely;

CLAUSE 2. Not to be subject to torture;
3. To be allowed to communicate with their families;
In cases not covered by other international 4. To receive food, clothing, religious articles, and medicine;
agreements, civilians and combatants remain 5. To bare minimum of information;
under the protection and authority of the 6. To keep personal belongings;
principles of International Law derived from 7. To proper burial;
established custom, from the Principles of 8. To be grouped according to nationality;
Humanity and from the dictates of public 9. To the establishment of an informed bureau; and
conscience. 10. To repatriation for sick and wounded (1949 Geneva
Convention)
The extensive codification of IHL and the extent of
the accession to the resultant treaties, as well as Members of Militias or Volunteer Groups as Prisoners-Of-
the fact that the denunciation clauses that existed War
in the codification instruments have never been
used, have provided the international community Members of militias or volunteer groups are entitled to
with a corpus of treaty rules the great majority of prisoner-of-war status when captured by the enemy, provided
which had already become customary and which that:
reflected the most universally recognized
humanitarian principles. These rules indicate the
normal conduct and behavior expected of States.
4. They conduct their operations in accordance
with the laws and customs of war.
1. They form part of such armed
forces of the state; or NOTE: Persons such as civilian members of
2. They fulfill the following conditions: military aircraft crews, and war correspondents,
a. They are being shall be so entitled to prisoner-of-war status
commanded by a person when they fall under the hands of the enemy.
responsible as superior;
b. They have a fixed Status of Journalists who are engaged in
distinctive sign dangerous professional missions in areas of
recognizable at a distance; armed conflicts
c. They carry arms openly; and
d. They conduct their They shall be treated as civilians, provided that
operations in accordance they take no action adversely affecting their
with the laws and customs status as civilians, and their prisoners-of-war
of war. status to the armed forces when they fall to the
enemy hands.
Captured guerilla as prisoners of war
Treatment of spies when captured
A captured guerilla or other
members of organized resistance As spy is a soldier employing false pretenses or
movements may demand treatment acts through clandestine means to gather
afforded to a prisoner of war under information from the enemy.
the 1949 Geneva Convention,
provided that: When captured, may be proceeded against under
the municipal law of the other belligerent,
1. They are being commanded by although under the Hague Convention, may not
a person responsible as be executed without trial. But if captured after he
superior; has succeeded in rejoining his army, must be
2. They have a fixed distinctive treated as a prisoner of war. (Nachura, Political
sign recognizable at a distance; Law Outline, 2014)
3. They carry arms openly; and
A soldier not wearing uniform during hostilities
runs the risk of being treated as a spy and not LAW OF NEUTRALITY
entitled to prisoner of war status. When caught,
they are not to be regarded as prisoners of war. Neutrality
NOTE: Military scouts are not spies. It is non-participation, directly or indirectly, in

a war between contending belligerents. This
Spies are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status exists only during war time and is governed by
when captured by the enemy. Any member of the the law of nations. It is dependent solely on
armed forces of a party to the conflict who falls the attitude of the neutral state.
into the power of an adverse party while
engaging in espionage shall not have the right to e.g.: Switzerland, Sweden, The Vatican City,
the status of prisoner of war and may be treated and Costa Rica.
as a spy.
Non-alignment (Neutralism)
However, the following acts of gathering or
attempting to gather information shall not be This refers to peacetime foreign policies of
considered as acts of espionage: nations desiring to remain detached from
conflicting interests of other nations or power
1. When made by a member of the armed forces groups.
who is in uniform; and
2. When made by a member of the armed forces Neutralist policy
who is a resident of the territory occupied by
an adverse party who does so but not It is the policy of the state to remain neutral in
through an act of false pretenses or in a future wars.
deliberately clandestine manner.
Neutrality vs. Non-alignment
of war or
BASIS NEUTRALITY NON- conflict.
ALIGNMENT Avoids Rejects
As to Presupposes Exists during involvement imperialism
applicability the existence peace time. in a war. and
Purpose
colonialism by
the world
powers.
Pre- Evaluates the
determined world political
As to nature position. events based
on case-to-
case merits.
A State considered as a neutralized state
When its independence and integrity are

guaranteed by an international convention on the
condition that such State obligates itself to never
take up arms against any other State, except for
self-defense, or enter into such international
obligations as would indirectly involve a war.
Rights and Duties of a Neutral State
1. Duty of abstention – Abstain from taking part

in the hostilities and from giving assistance to
either belligerent;
2. Duty of prevention – Prevent its territory and
other resources from being used in the
conduct of hostilities;
3. Duty of acquiescence – Acquiesce in certain
restrictions and limitations the belligerents
may find necessary to impose; and
4. Right of diplomatic communication – To
continue diplomatic relations with other
neutral states and with the belligerents.
Obligations of belligerents
1. Respect the status of the neutral State; and

2. Avoid any act that will directly or indirectly
involve it in their conflict; and
3. to submit to any lawful measure it may take
to maintain or protect its neutrality.
Some restraints on neutral states
1. Blockade;
2. Contraband of war; and
3. Free ships make free goods.
Blockade
It is any effort to cut off all maritime commerce

between any enemy state and the rest of the
world. The purpose was not only to prevent
goods from
reaching the enemy but also to prevent the Goods intended for civilian use which may ultimately find their
enemy from exporting to the outside world and way to and be consumed by belligerent forces may be seized on
thereby sustaining its war economy. (Sarmiento, the way.
2007)
Elements of a valid blockade
1. Binding and duly communicated to neutral

states;
2. Effective and maintained by adequate
sources;
3. Established by a competent authority of
belligerent government;
4. Limited only to the territory of the enemy;
and
5. Impartially applied to all states.
Q: Is blockade lawful in international law?
A: if made upon the order or authority of the UN

Secretary Council pursuant to Article 42 of the UN
Charter, that is, a measure to maintain or restore
international peace and security. Otherwise, it
will fall under the UN Charter’s prohibition
against the use of force under Article 2(4).
Contraband
It refers to goods which, although neutral

property, may be seized by a belligerent because
they are useful for war and are bound for a
hostile destination.
Kinds of contraband
1. Absolute – those which are useful for war

under all circumstances (e.g: guns and
ammunitions);
2. Conditional – those which have both civilian
and military utility (e.g: food and clothing); or
3. Under the free list – goods useful for war and
bound for the belligerents but those which
are exempt from the law on contraband for
humanitarian reasons (example: medicines)
Doctrine of Continuous Voyage or Continuous

Transport
Goods immediately reloaded at an intermediate

port on the same vessel, or reloaded on another
vessel or other forms of transportation may also
be seized on the basis of doctrine of ultimate
consumption.
Doctrine of Ultimate Consumption

they are in any way connected with the hostilities.
Doctrine of Infection Unneutral service
Innocent goods belonging to the It consists of acts, of a more hostile character than
same owner shipped together with carriage of contraband or breach of blockade,
contraband which are subject to which are undertaken by merchant vessels of a
condemnation may be confiscated. neutral State in aid of any of the belligerents.
(Declaration of London, Art. 42)
Right of Angary
Doctrine of Ultimate Destination
A belligerent may, upon payment of just
The liability of the contraband from compensation, seize, use or destroy, in case of
being captured is determined not urgent necessity for purposes of offenses or
by their ostensible but by their real defenses, neutral property found in its territory,
destination. in enemy territory, or on high seas.
Doctrine of Free Ships Make Free Goods Requisites for the Exercise of Right of Angary
A ship’s nationality determines the 1. That the property is in the territory under the
status of its cargo. Thus, enemy control or jurisdiction of the belligerent;
goods on a neutral ship, excepting 2. That there is urgent necessity for the taking;
contraband, would not be subject to and
capture on the high seas. 3. That just compensation is paid to the owner.
Visit and Search Termination of Neutrality
Belligerent warships and aircraft Neutrality is terminated when the neutral State
have the right to visit and search itself joins the war or upon the conclusion of
neutral merchant vessels on the peace.
high seas to determine whether
LAW OF THE SEA November 16, 1994 upon the submission of
the 60th ratification. The UNCLOS gives to the
coastal State sovereign rights in varying
International Law of the Sea (ILS) degrees over the different zones of the sea
which are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial
A body of treaty rules amid customary norms sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive
governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also
its resources, and the exercise of jurisdiction over gives coastal States more or less jurisdiction
maritime regimes. It is a branch of public over foreign vessels depending on where the
international law, regulating the relations of vessel is located. Insofar as the internal
states with respect to the uses of the oceans. waters and territorial sea is concerned, the
(Arigo v. Swift, G.R. No. 206510, September 16, Coastal State exercises sovereignty, subject to
2014) the UNCLOS and other rules of international
law. Such sovereignty extends to the air space
United Nations Convention on the Law of the over the territorial sea as well as to its bed
Sea (UNCLOS) and subsoil. (Arigo v. Swift, ibid..)
A treaty that defines the rights and obligations of Mare Liberum Principle or Free Sea or
nations in their use of the world’s oceans, Freedom of the Sea
establishing rules for business, the environment,
and the management of marine natural resources. It means international waters are free to all
nations and belongs to none of them.
The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty which was
opened for signature on December 10, 1982 at BASELINES
Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was ratified by the
Philippines in 1984 but came into force on Baseline
It is a line from which the breadth of the
territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the
exclusive economic zone is measured in order to Baselines may either be:
determine the maritime boundary of the coastal
State. 1. Normal
2. Straight
It is the “low-water line along the coast as marked
on large scale charts officially recognized by the
coastal State” (Sec. 5, 182 LOS)
Two ways to draw baselines
1. Normal Baseline
Is one drawn following the “low-water line along

the coast as marked on large-scale charts
officially recognized by the coastal state”. The line
follows the curvature of the coast and therefore
would normally not consist of straight lines.
2. Straight Baseline
Instead of following the curvatures of the coast,

straight lines are drawn connecting selected
points on the coast without appreciable
departure from the general shape of the coast.
Formation of Baseline
1. Mouths of Rivers – If a river flows directly into

the sea, the baseline shall be a straight line
across the mouth of the river between points
on the low-water line of its banks (UNCLOS,
Art. 9); or
2. Bays – Where the distance between the low-
water marks of the natural entrance points:
a. Does not exceed 24 nautical miles – a
closing line may be drawn between these
two low-water marks, and the waters
enclosed thereby shall be considered as
internal waters [UNCLOS, Art. 10 (4)]; dimensions form part of the internal waters of the
and Philippines.
b. Exceeds 24 nautical miles – a straight
baseline of 24 nautical miles shall be It emphasizes the unity of land and waters by
drawn within the bay in such a manner defining an archipelago either as a group of
as to enclose the maximum area of water islands surrounded by waters or a body of water
that is possible with a line of that length studded with islands.
[UNCLOS, Art. 10 (5)]
Straight Archipelagic Baselines vis-à-vis
NOTE: This relates only to bays the coasts of Archipelagic State (2016 Bar)
which belong to a single State and does not apply
to “historic” bays. [UNCLOS, Art. 10 (1)] An archipelagic State may draw straight
archipelagic baselines by joining the outermost
Bay points of the outermost islands and drying reefs
of the archipelago provided that within such
It is a well-marked indentation whose baselines are included the main islands and an
penetration is in such proportion to the width of area in which the ration of the water to the area
its mouth as to contain land-locked waters and of the land, including atolls, is between 1 to 1 and
constitute more than a mere curvature of the 9 to 1. (UNCLOS, Art. 47)
coast. [UNCLOS, Art. 10 (2)]
Guidelines in drawing archipelagic baselines
Water bays are considered international waters
of a coastal state. 1. The length of such baselines shall not exceed
100 nautical miles, except that up to 3 per
NOTE: The indentation shall not be regarded as a cent of the total number of baselines
bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, enclosing any archipelago may exceed that
that of the semi-circle whose diameter is a line length, up to a maximum length of 125
drawn across the mouth of that indentation. nautical miles. [UNCLOS, Art. 47 (2)]
(Ibid) 2. The drawing of such baselines shall not
depart to any appreciable extent from the
ARCHIPELAGIC STATES general configuration of the archipelago.
[UNCLOS, Art. 47(3)]
Archipelago 3. Such baselines shall not be drawn to and
from low tide elevations. [UNCLOS, Art. 47(4)]
It means a group of islands, including parts of
islands, interconnecting waters and other natural NOTE: Unless lighthouses or similar
features which are so closely interrelated that installations which are permanently above
such islands, waters and other natural features sea level have been built on them or where a
form an intrinsic geographical, economic and low-tide elevation is situated wholly or partly
political entity, or which historically have been at distances not exceeding the breadth of the
regarded as such. (UNCLOS, Art. 46) territorial sea from the nearest island. (Ibid)
Archipelagic State 4. It shall not be applied in such a manner as to

cut off from the high seas or the exclusive
A state constituted wholly by one or more economic zone the territorial sea of another
archipelagos and may include other islands. State. [UNCLOS, Art. 47(5)]
(UNCLOS, Art. 46) 5. If a part of the archipelagic water of an
archipelagic State lies between two parts of
Archipelagic Doctrine (2016 Bar) an immediately adjacent neighboring State,
existing rights and all other legitimate
Art. I, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution adopts the interests which the latter State has
archipelagic doctrine. It provides that the traditionally exercised in such waters and all
national territory of the Philippines includes the rights stipulated by agreement between
Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and those States shall continue and be respected.
waters embraced therein; and the waters around, [UNCLOS, Art. 47(6)]
between and connecting the islands of the
archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
NOTE: The breadth of the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and
the continental shelf are measured from the XPN: Right of Innocent Passage may be
archipelagic baselines drawn in accordance with suspended in some areas of its archipelagic
waters. But such suspension must be:
Art. 47. (UNCLOS, Art. 48)
Sovereignty of the archipelagic states 1. The suspension is made without

discrimination in form or in fact among
foreign ships;
It extends to the waters enclosed by the
2. Suspension is merely temporary;
archipelagic baselines (archipelagic waters),
3. It must specify the areas of it archipelagic
regardless of their depth or distance from the
waters where innocent passage shall not
coast, to the air space over the archipelagic
be allowed;
waters, as well as to their bed and subsoil and the
resources contained therein. 4. Such suspension is essential for the
protection of its security; and
5. Such suspension shall take effect only
The sovereignty extends to the archipelagic
after having been duly published.
waters but is subject to the right of innocent
passage which is the same nature as the right of
innocent passage in the territorial sea. [UNCLOS,
Q: Does R.A. 9522 (Philippine Archipelagic
Art. 49(1) in relation to Art. 52(1)]
Baseline Law) converting internal waters into
archipelagic waters, violate the Constitution
NOTE: The regime of archipelagic sea lanes
in subjecting these waters to the right of
passage shall not in other respects affect the
innocent and sea lanes passage including
status of the archipelagic waters, including the
overflight? (2004, 2015 Bar)
sea lanes, or the exercise by the archipelagic State
of its sovereignty over such waters and their air
A: NO. Whether referred to as Philippine “internal
space, bed and subsoil and the resources
waters” under Art. I of the Constitution or as
contained therein. [UNCLOS, Art. 49(4)]
“archipelagic waters” under UNCLOS III [Art. 49
(1)], the Philippines exercises sovereignty over
Archipelagic waters
the body of water lying landward of the baselines,
including the air space over it and the submarine
These are waters enclosed by the archipelagic
areas underneath.
baselines, regardless of their depth or distance
from the coast. [UNCLOS, Art. 49(1)]
The fact of sovereignty, however, does not
preclude the operation of municipal and
Rights by which archipelagic waters are
international law norms subjecting the territorial
subject to:
sea or archipelagic waters to necessary, if not
marginal, burdens in the interest of maintaining
1. Rights under existing agreement on the part
unimpeded, expeditious international navigation,
of the third states should be respected
consistent with the international law principle of
[UNCLOS, Art. 51(1)];
freedom of navigation.
2. The traditional fishing rights and other
legitimate activities of the immediately
adjacent neighboring States (Ibid); and Thus, domestically, the political branches of the
3. Existing submarine cables laid by other Philippine government, in the competent
discharge of their constitutional powers, may
States and “passing through its waters
without making a windfall” as well as the pass legislation designating routes within the
archipelagic waters to regulate innocent and sea
maintenance and replacement of such cables
upon being notified of their location and the lanes passage. (Magallona v. Ermita, G.R. No.
187167, August 16, 2011)
intention to repair or replace them. [UNCLOS,
Art. 51(2)]
NOTE: In the absence of municipal legislation,
Applicability of the right of innocent passage international law norms, now codified in UNCLOS
in archipelagic waters III, operate to grant innocent passage rights over
the territorial sea or archipelagic waters, subject
GR: As a rule, ships of all States enjoy the right of to the treaty’s limitations and conditions for their
innocent passage through archipelagic waters. exercise. Significantly, the right of innocent
[UNCLOS, Art. 52(1)] passage is a customary international law, thus
automatically incorporated in the corpus of
Philippine law. No modern State can validly Sea Lanes and Air Routes
invoke its sovereignty to absolutely forbid
innocent passage that is exercised in accordance It shall traverse the archipelagic waters and the
with customary international law without risking adjacent territorial sea and shall include all
retaliatory measures from the international normal passage routes used as routes for
community. international navigation or overflight through or
over archipelagic waters and, within such routes,
The imposition of these passage rights through so far as ships are concerned, all navigational
archipelagic waters under UNCLOS III was a channels, provided that duplication of routes of
concession by archipelagic States, in exchange for similar convenience between the same entry and
their right to claim all the waters landward of exit points shall not be necessary. (UNCLOS, Art.
their baselines, regardless of their depth or 53[4])
distance from the coast, as archipelagic waters
subject to their territorial sovereignty. More Designation or substitution of sea lanes
importantly, the recognition of archipelagic
States’ archipelago and the waters enclosed by The archipelagic State shall refer proposals to the
their baselines as one cohesive entity prevents competent international organization
the treatment of their islands as separate islands (International Maritime Organization). The IMO
under UNCLOS III. Separate islands generate their may adopt only such sea lanes as may be agreed
own maritime zones, placing the waters between with the archipelagic State, after which the
islands separated by more than 24 nautical miles archipelagic State may designate, prescribe or
beyond the States’ territorial sovereignty, substitute them. [UNCLOS, Art. 53(9)]
subjecting these waters to the rights of other
States under UNCLOS Regime of Islands
III. (Magallona v. Ermita, ibid.)
1. An island is a naturally formed area of
Right of archipelagic sea lanes passage land, surrounded by water, which is
above water at high tide;
It is the right of foreign ships and aircraft to have 2. Except as provided for in paragraph 3,
continuous, expeditious and unobstructed the territorial sea, the contiguous zone
passage in sea lanes and air routes through or and the continental shelf of an island are
over the archipelagic waters and the adjacent determined in accordance with the
territorial sea of the archipelagic state, “in transit provisions of the Convention applicable
between one part of the high seas or an exclusive to other land territory; and
economic zone.” All ships and aircraft are entitled 3. Rocks which cannot sustain human
to the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage. habitation or economic life of their own
[UNCLOS, Art. 53(1) in relation with Art. 53(3)] shall have no exclusive economic zone or
continental shelf. (UNCLOS, Art. 121)
All ships are entitled to the right of archipelagic
sea lanes passage. Submarines are not required to NOTE: Islands can be very important because of
surface in the course of its passage unlike the the possibility of exploiting oil and gas resources
exercise of right of innocent passage in the around them. This explains the controversy over
territorial sea. [UNCLOS, Art. 20 in relation to Art. Spratleys. It is noteworthy that islands can have
53(3)] their own territorial sea, exclusive economic zone
and continental shelf. However, rocks “which
The right is the same as Transit Passage. Both cannot sustain human habitation or economic
define the rights of navigation and overflight in life” only have a territorial sea. But there is no
the normal mode solely for the purpose of clear international law definition of “economic
“continuous, expeditious and unobstructed life” referred to in no. 3. (Bernas, Introduction to
transit.” In both cases, the archipelagic state Public International Law 2009, p. 129)
cannot suspend passage. (UNCLOS, Arts. 44 and
54) Artificial islands or installations are not “islands”
in the sense of Art. 121 of the UNCLOS. However,
NOTE: The right of archipelagic sea lanes passage coastal states may establish safety zones around
may be exercised through the routes normally artificial islands and prescribe safety measures
used for international navigation. [UNCLOS, Art. around them. [ibid, citing UNCLOS, Art. 60(4) and
53(12)] (5)]
to territorial sea and the archipelagic waters.
Regime of Islands under Philippine Laws
The baseline in the following areas over which

the Philippines likewise exercises sovereignty
and jurisdiction shall be determined as "Regime
of Islands" under the Republic of the Philippines
consistent with Art. 121 of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS):
a) The Kalayaan Island Group as constituted

under Presidential Decree No. 1596; and
b) Bajo de Masinloc, also known as
Scarborough Shoal. (R.A. No. 9522, Sect.
2)
INTERNAL WATERS
Internal waters
These are waters of lakes, rivers and bays

landward of the baseline of the territorial sea.
Waters on the landward side of the baseline of
the territorial sea also form part of the internal
waters of the coastal state. However, in the case
of archipelagic states, waters landward of the
baseline other than those of rivers, bays, and
lakes, are archipelagic waters. [UNCLOS, Art. 8
(1)]
Delimitation of internal waters
Within the archipelagic waters, the archipelagic

state may draw closing lines for the delimitation
of internal waters. (UNCLOS, Art. 50 in relation
with Arts. 9, 10, 11)
NOTE: A coastal state has sovereignty over its

internal waters as if internal waters were part of
its land territory. (UNCLOS, Art. 50)
Right of Innocent Passage (1991 Bar)
It means navigation through the territorial sea of

a State for the purpose of traversing the sea
without entering internal waters, or of
proceeding to internal waters, or making for the
high seas from internal waters, as long as it is not
prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of
the coastal State. [UNCLOS, Arts. 18 (1)(2), 19(1)]
Applicability of the right of innocent passage

in internal waters
GR: There is no Right of Innocent Passage

through the internal water because it only applies
XPN: A coastal state may extend its internal waters by TERRITORIAL SEA INTERNAL WATERS
applying the straight baseline method in such a way
as to enclose as its internal waters areas which are Defined by historic Defined by the
previously part of the territorial sea. It also applies to right or treaty limits archipelago doctrine
straits used for international navigation converted
into internal waters by applying the straight As defined in the Outermost points of
baselines method. Thus, the right of innocent passage Convention on the our archipelago which
continues to exist in the “extended” internal waters. Law of the Sea, has a are connected with
[UNCLOS, Art. 8(2)] uniform breadth of 12 baselines and all
miles measured from waters comprised
TERRITORIAL SEA the lower water mark therein
of the coast
Breadth of The Territorial Sea (2004, 2015 Bar)
Every State has the right to establish the breadth of

the territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 Methods used in defining territorial sea
nautical miles, measured from baselines (UNCLOS,
Art. 3). 1. Normal baseline method – The territorial sea
is simply drawn from the low-water mark of
Outer Limit of The Territorial Sea the coast, to the breadth claimed, following
its sinuousness and curvatures but excluding
It is the line every point of which is at a distance from the internal waters in the bays and gulfs
the nearest point of the baseline equal to the breadth (UNCLOS, Art. 5); and
of the territorial sea. (UNCLOS, Art. 4) 2. Straight baseline method – Where the
coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or if
Territorial sea vs. Internal waters of the Philippines there is a fringe of islands along the coast in
its immediate vicinity, the method of straight
baselines joining appropriate points may be
employed in drawing the baseline from which according to the Nicaragua v. US case, a coastal state may
the breadth of the territorial sea is measure. regulate access to its ports.
(UNCLOS, Art. 7)
Instances when the right of innocent passage is considered
NOTE: The Philippines uses this method in prejudicial
drawing baselines.
Right of innocent passage is considered prejudicial if the foreign
Sovereignty over the territorial sea (2015 Bar) ship engages in the following activities:
Coastal states exercise sovereignty over 1. Any threat or use of force against the sovereignty,
Territorial sea and it extends to the airspace over territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal
the territorial sea and to its seabed and subsoil. State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles
of international law embodied in the Charter of the United
NOTE: The sovereignty over the territorial sea is Nations;
subject to the right of innocent passage on the 2. Any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;
part of ships of all states. (Magallona, 2005) 3. Any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of
the defense or security of the coastal State;
Applicability of the right of innocent passage 4. Any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of
in the internal waters and territorial sea the defense or security of the coastal State;
5. Any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or
In the territorial sea, a foreign State can claim for security of the coastal State;
its ships the right of innocent passage, whereas in 6. The launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;
the internal waters of a State no such right exists.
However, in Saudi Arabia v. Aramco (Arbitration

1963), the arbitrator said that according to
international law — ports of every state must be
open to foreign vessels and can only be closed
when vital interests of the state so requires. But
7. The launching, landing or and facilities and other facilities or
taking on board of any military installations;
device; 3. Protection of cables and pipelines;
8. The loading or unloading of any 4. Conservation of the living resources of the sea;
commodity, currency or person 5. Prevention of infringement of the fisheries
contrary to the customs, fiscal, laws and regulations of the coastal State;
immigration or sanitary laws 6. Preservation of the environment of the
and regulations of the coastal coastal State and the prevention, reduction
State; and control of pollution thereof;
9. Any act of willful and serious 7. Marine Scientific research and hydrographic
pollution contrary the surveys; or
Convention; 8. Prevention of infringement of the customs,
10. Any fishing activities; fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and
11. The carrying out of research or regulations of the coastal State. [UNCLOS, Art.
survey activities; 21(1)]
12. Any act aimed at interfering
with any systems of NOTE: It shall not however, apply to the design,
communication or any other construction, manning or equipment of foreign
facilities or installations of the ships unless they are giving effect to generally
coastal State; or accepted international rules or standards.
13. Any other activity not having a [UNCLOS, Art. 21(2)]
direct bearing on passage.
(UNCLOS, Art. 19 [2]) Rules when traversing the territorial sea
through the right of innocent passage
Laws and regulations of the
coastal State relating to innocent 1. Submarines and other underwater vehicles –
passage They are required to navigate on the surface
and to show their flag (UNCLOS, Art. 20);
The coastal state may adopt laws 2. Foreign nuclear-powered ships and ships
and regulations in respect of all or carrying nuclear or other inherently
any of the following: dangerous or noxious substances – They must
1. Safety of navigation and the carry documents and observe special
regulation of maritime traffic; precautionary measures established for such
2. Protection of navigational aids ships by
international agreements. They may be (UNCLOS, Art. 32)
required to confine their passage on sea lanes
prescribed by the coastal State (UNCLOS, Art. Warship
23);
3. Warships – It is a ship belonging to the armed forces of a
a. Coastal State may require that it leave State bearing the external marks
the territorial sea immediately when it distinguishing such ships of its nationality,
does not comply with the laws and under the command of an officer duly
regulations of the coastal State and commissioned by the government of the State
disregards compliance (UNCLOS, Art. 30); and whose name appears in the appropriate
b. Flag State shall bear international service list or its equivalent,and manned by a
responsibility for any loss or damage to crew which is under regular armed forces
the coastal State resulting from non- discipline. (UNCLOS, Art. 29)
compliance with the laws and regulations
of the coastal State concerning passage NOTE: The right of innocent passage pertains
(UNCLOS, Art. 31); and to all ships, including warships.
c. Submarines in innocent passage are
required to navigate on the surface and Duties of the coastal State with regard to
to show their flag. (UNCLOS, Art. 20) innocent passage of foreign ships
NOTE: This will not affect the immunities of The coastal State shall:
warships and other government ships 1. Not hamper the innocent passage of the
operated for non-commercial purpose. foreign ships through its territorial sea;
2. Not impose requirements on foreign ships
which have the practical effect of denying or
impairing the right of innocent passage; The coastal State may:
3. Not discriminate in form or in fact against the 1. Take the necessary steps in its territorial sea
ships of any State or against ships carrying to prevent passage which is not innocent
cargoes to, from or on behalf of any State; and [UNCLOS, Art. 25(1)];
4. Give appropriate publicity to any danger to 2. Take the necessary steps to prevent any
navigation, of which it has knowledge, within breach of the conditions to which admission
its territorial sea. (UNCLOS, Art. 24) of ships to internal waters or such a call is
subject [UNCLOS, Art. 25(2)];
Rights of the coastal state relating to innocent 3. Without discrimination in form or in fact
passage through the territorial sea: among foreign ships, suspend temporarily in
specified areas of its territorial sea the
innocent passage of foreign ships if such
suspension is essential for the protection of
its security, including weapon exercises.
NOTE: No charge may be levied upon foreign

ships by reason only of their passage through the
territorial sea. [UNCLOS, Art. 26(1)]
Charges may be levied only as payment for

specific services rendered to the ship which shall
be levied without discrimination. [UNCLOS, Art.
26(2)]
Right of the coastal state to suspend innocent

passage in specified areas
The coastal state may, without discrimination in

form or in fact among foreign ships, suspend
temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea
the innocent passage of foreign ships if such
suspension is essential for the protection of its
security, including weapons exercises. Such
suspension shall take effect only after having
been duly published. [UNCLOS, Art. 25(3), Part II
Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone]
Exercise of criminal jurisdiction of the coastal

state
GR: Criminal jurisdiction of the coastal state

should not be exercised on board a foreign ship
passing through the territorial sea to arrest any
person or to conduct any investigation in
connection with any crime committed on board
the ship during its passage.
XPNs:
1. Consequence of the crime extend to the
coastal state;
2. Crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the
country or the good order of the territorial
sea
3. Assistance of local authorities has been
requested by the master of the ship or by a
diplomatic agent or consular officer of the
flag State; or
4. Measures are necessary for the suppression territory to punish such infringement. (Article 33, 1 & 2)
of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or
psychotropic substances. [UNCLOS, Art.
27(1)]
NOTE: Such does not affect the right of the coastal

state to take any steps authorized by its laws for
the purpose of an arrest or investigation on board
a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea
after leaving internal waters. [UNCLOS, Art. 27(2)]
Exercise of civil jurisdiction over foreign ships

passing through the territorial sea of the
coastal state
The coastal state may exercise civil jurisdiction,

subject to the following exceptions:
1. It should not stop or divert a foreign ship

passing through the territorial sea for the
purpose of exercising civil jurisdiction in
relation to a person on board the ship
2. It may not levy execution against or arrest
the ship for the purpose of any civil
proceedings, save only in respect of
obligations or liabilities assumed or incurred
by the ship itself in the course or for the
purpose of its voyage through the waters of
the coastal State [UNCLOS, Art. 28(2)]
NOTE: It is without prejudice to the right of

the coastal State, in accordance with its laws,
to levy execution against or to arrest, for the
purpose of any civil proceedings, a foreign
ship lying in the territorial sea, or passing
through the territorial sea after leaving
internal waters. [UNCLOS, Art. 28(3)]
CONTIGUOUS ZONE
It is the zone adjacent to the territorial sea, which

the coastal State may exercise such control as is
necessary to:
1. Prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigration, or sanitary laws within its
territory or its territorial sea; or
2. Punish such infringement.
It is the area of water not exceeding 24 nautical

miles from the baseline. It thus extends 12
nautical miles from the edge of the territorial sea.
The Coastal State exercises authority over that
area to the extent necessary to prevent
infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or
sanitation authority over its territorial waters or
Contiguous zone does not
automatically belong to the
territory of the coastal state
The coastal state must make a claim

to its Contiguous Zone for pertinent
rights to exist. Art. 33 of the UNCLOS
speaks in permissive terms, i.e., “the
coastal state may exercise the
control necessary” for definite
purposes. (Magallona, 2005)
Extent of the Contiguous Zone
The coastal State may not extend its

Contiguous Zone beyond the 24
nautical miles from the baseline
(from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured).
Right of transit passage
It is the right to exercise freedom of

navigation and overflight solely for
the purpose of continuous and
expeditious transit through the
straits used for international
navigation, i.e., between two areas
of the high seas or between two
exclusive economic zones.
The requirement of continuous and

expeditious transit does not
preclude passage through the strait
for the purpose of entering, leaving
or returning from a State bordering
the strait, subject to the conditions
of entry to that State. [UNCLOS, Art.
38(2)]
NOTE: The right of transit passage

is not applicable if there exists
seaward of the island a route
through the high seas or through an
exclusive economic zone of similar
convenience with respect to
navigational and hydrographical
characteristics. [UNCLOS, Art. 38(1)]
Vessels entitled to right of transit passage
All ships and aircraft enjoy the right

of transit passage.
Right of innocent passage vs. Transit passage

INNOCENT TRANSIT
BASIS PASSAGE PASSAGE
Covers Covers
navigation only navigation
As to scope
and
overflight by
aircrafts
It gives the coastal State sovereign rights
Requires No overall economic resources of the sea, sea-bed
submarine and requirement and subsoil in an area extending not more
other specially than 200 nautical miles beyond the baseline
As to
underwater applicable from which the territorial sea is measured.
submarine
vehicles to to (UNCLOS, Articles. 55 & 57)
s
navigate on the submarines.
surface and to NOTE: The provisions on the exclusive
show their flag.
economic zone are voth a grant of right to and
May be May not be and
As to
unilaterally unilaterally
suspension
suspended suspended
In the Designation
designation of of sea lanes
sea lanes and and traffic
traffic separation separation
schemes, the schemes is
coastal State shall subject to a
only take into proposal
account the and
recommendation agreement
As to
s of a competent between
designatio
international States
n of
organization. bordering
sea
the straits
lanes
and its
subsequent
adoption by
a competent
internationa
l
organization
.
Thalweg Doctrine
It provides that for boundary rivers, in the

absence of an agreement between the riparian
States, the boundary line is laid in the middle of
the main navigable channel.
It aims to resolve water boundary disputes.

According to this doctrine, the boundary between
two states divided by a flowing body of water
should be drawn along the thalweg, which is the
deepest potion of the channel.
EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

imposition of obligations on coastal states relative to of the Sea Convention (Law of the Sea
the exploitation, management, and preservation of Convention, Art. 56).
the resources found within the zone.
NOTE: The coastal State has no sovereignty over
Rights of the coastal state in the EEZ (2004, 2005 the EEZ. What the coastal State only has are
Bar) sovereign rights, jurisdictional rights, and other
rights under the Law of the Sea Convention.
1. Sovereign rights;
a. For the purpose of exploring and exploiting, The coastal state may inspect and arrest
conserving and managing the living and non- ship’s crew in its EEZ
living resources in the super adjacent waters
of the sea-bed and the resources of the sea- The coastal State may board, and inspect a ship,
bed and subsoil; and arrest a ship and its crew and institute judicial
b. With respect to the other activities for the proceedings against them. Arrested vessels and
economic exploitation and exploration of the their crews may be required to post reasonable
EEZ, such as production of energy from bond or any other form of security. However, they
water, currents and winds; must be promptly released upon posting of bond.
2. Jurisdictional rights; and In the absence of agreement to the contrary by

a. With respect to establishment and use of the States concerned, UNCLOS does not allow
artificial islands; imprisonment or any other form of corporal
b. As to protection and preservation of the punishment. However, in cases of arrest and
marine environment; and detention of foreign vessels, it shall promptly
c. Over marine scientific research notify the flag state of the action taken.
3. Other rights and duties provided for in the Law Primary obligations of coastal states over the
EEZ
1. Proper conservation and management 61)

measures that the living resources of the EEZ
are not subjected to over-exploitation; and Note: The coastal state must determine its capacity to harvest
the living resources of the EEZ. If it does not have capacity to
NOTE: The UNCLOS does not set a limit, harvest the allowable catch, it shall give other states access to
except by the duty of the coastal state not to the surplus of the allowable catch by means of agreements or
overexploit. (Magallona, 2005) arrangements consistent with the UNCLOS. For this purpose the
coastal state may establish terms and conditions by laws and
2. Promote the objective of “optimum regulations. (UNCLOS, Art. 62)
utilization” of the living resources, and to this
end, to determine the maximum allowable If the coastal state sets the allowable catch at the same level as
catch of such resources in relation to its its harvesting capacity, then no surplus is left. The result is that
capacity to harvest the allowable catch. the access by other states to surplus stocks may prove to be
[UNCLOS, Art. 61(2), 62(1)] illusory. (Magallona, 2005)
Objectives of conservation of living resources Matters that the coastal state may regulate in regard to
in the EEZ fishing by the nationals of other states in the EEZ
1. The determination of the allowable catch of the 1. Licensing of fishermen, fishing vessels and equipment, and
living resources; the payment of fishing;
2. The maintenance of the living resources in such 2. Determining the species which may be caught and fixing the
a way that they are not endangered by over- quotas to catch;
exploitation;
3. The maintenance or restoration of population
of harvested species at levels which can produce
the maximum sustainable yield; and (UNCLOS,
Art. 61); and
4. The maintenance of associated or dependent
species above levels at which their reproduction
may become seriously threatened (UNCLOS, Art.
3. Regulation of seasons and areas
of fishing, the types, sizes and CONTIGUOUS ZONE EEZ
amount of gear and fishing vessels Known as the Ends at the
that may be used; protective jurisdiction 200th nautical
4. Fixing the age and size of fish and starts from the 12th mile from the
that may be caught; nautical mile from low baseline.
5. Information required of fishing water
vessels, including catch and effort from the baseline.
statistics and vessel position Coastal state may No state really
reports; exercise the has the
6. The conduct of fisheries research programs control necessary exclusive
7. The placing of observers and to (1) prevent ownership of it,
trainees by the coastal state on infringement of its but the state
board foreign vessels; customs, fiscal, which has a
8. The landing of the catch by immigration, or valid claim on it
foreign vessels in the ports of the sanitary laws according to
coastal state; within its territory the UNCLOS
9. The terms and conditions of or its territorial has the right to
joint ventures or cooperative sea or (2) punish explore and
arrangements; such infringement. exploit its
10. Training of personnel and natural
transfer of fisheries technology; resources.
and
11. Enforcement procedures. CONTINENTAL SHELF
NOTE: The nationals of other Otherwise known as archipelagic or insular shelf

states granted access to the EEZ for archipelagos, refers to a) the seabed and
must comply with conservation subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the
measures and other conditions meters or, beyond that limit, to where the depth
provided in these laws and allows exploitation, and b) the seabed and subsoil
regulations. (UNCLOS, Art. 62) of areas adjacent to islands.
Contiguous zone vs. EEZ (2004 Bar) Categories of Continental shelf

Geological continental shelf
1. Continental shelf; and It comprises the entire prolongation of the
a. Geological continental shelf; and
coastal state’s land mass and extends up to the
b. Juridical/Legal Continental Shelf
outer edge of the continental margin.
2. Extended Continental Shelf. It starts from the baseline from which the
territorial sea is measured and has its outer
limit at the outer edge of the continental
margin which may extend beyond the 200
nautical miles from the baseline or may fall
short of that distance.
Continental shelf (Juridical/Legal

Continental Shelf)
It comprises the sea-bed and subsoil of the

submarine areas that extend beyond its
territorial sea throughout the natural
prolongation of its land territory to the outer
edge of the continental margin or to a distance
of 200 nautical miles beyond the baselines
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured if the edge of the continental margin
does not extend up to that distance. [UNCLOS,
Art. 76(1)]
providing that the continental shelf extends to the
NOTE: The rights of the coastal state over the breadth of either shelf, whichever is the farthest.
continental shelf do not depend on occupation, [UNCLOS, Art. 76(1)(4)]
effective or notional, or on any express
proclamation. [UNCLOS, Art. 77(3)] Continental margin
The UNCLOS unifies the continental and the It is the submerged prolongations of the land
extended continental shelves into one by mass of the coastal state, consisting of the
continental shelf proper, the continental slope
and the continental rise. It does not include the
deep ocean floor with its ocean ridges or the
subsoil. [UNCLOS, Art. 76(3)]
NOTE: The coastal State shall establish the outer

edge of the continental margin wherever the
margin extends beyond the 200 nautical miles
from the baselines. In establishing the
Continental Margin it shall either use:
1. A line drawn by reference to points no more

than 60 nautical miles from the foot of the
continental slope; or
2. A line drawn by reference to points at which
the thickness of sediments is less than one
percent of the distance to the base of the
continental slope. [UNCLOS, Art. 76(4)]
Permissible breadth of the continental shelf
Under the said UN Convention, it extends to a

distance not extending 200 nautical miles from
the baselines. However, if the coastal State
succeeds in its application for an extended
continental shelf, it may extend to not more than
350 nautical miles. [UNCLOS, Art. 76(1)(5)]
NOTE: Under Presidential Proclamation 370, the

continental shelf has no such legal limit. It extends
outside the area of the territorial sea “to where
the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the
exploitation of such natural resources.” In this
case, exploitation of resources may go beyond the
200 nautical miles.
EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF
It is that portion of the continental shelf that lies

beyond the 200 nautical miles limit in the
juridical/legal continental Shelf. (Ibid)
Benham Plateau
It is also known as the Benham Rise. The

Philippines lodged its claim on the area with the
United Nations Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf on April 8, 2009. The UNCLOS
approved the claim of the Philippines that the
Benham Plateau is part of Philippine Territory on is limited by the right of the coastal state to take measures
April 12, 2012. in exploring its continental
Sovereign rights of a coastal State over the

continental shelf
1. Right to explore and exploit its natural

resources [UNCLOS, Art. 77(1)];
NOTE: This right is exclusive. Should the

coastal State not explore or exploit the
natural resources, no one may undertake
these activities without the express consent
of the coastal State. [UNCLOS, Art. 77(2)]
Natural resources include mineral and other
non- living resources of the seabed and
subsoil together with living organisms
belonging to sedentary species. [UNCLOS, Art.
77(4)]
Rule on payment for exploitation of non-

living resources
GR: Exploitation of the non-living resources

of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical
miles would entail the coastal State to make
payments or contributions in kind which
shall be made annually with respect to all
production at site after the first five years of
production and 1% of the value or volume of
production at the site at the sixth year. It shall
increase by 1% for each subsequent year
until the 12th year where it shall remain at
7%.
The payments or contributions shall be made

through the International Seabed Authority,
which shall distribute them to States Parties
to this Convention, on the basis of equitable
sharing criteria, taking into account the
interests and needs of developing States,
particularly the least developed and the land-
locked among them. [UNCLOS, Art. 82(1)(2)
(4)]
XPN: A developing State which is a net

importer of a mineral resource produced
from its continental shelf is exempt from
making such payments or contributions in
respect of that mineral resource. [UNCLOS,
Art. 82(3)]
2. To lay submarine cables and pipelines on the

continental shelf [UNCLOS, Art. 79(1)];
NOTE: State may make reasonable measures

for the prevention, reduction and control of
pollution from pipelines. The laying of cables
shelf, exploiting the natural
resources, and the protection 5. Right to authorize and regulate drilling on the
of the marine environment continental shelf for all purposes (UNCLOS,
from pollution. (UNCLOS, Art. Art. 81)
79)
NOTE: This right is exclusive.
3. Artificial islands, installations
and structures on the Limitation on the rights of coastal state over
continental shelf (UNCLOS, Art. the continental shelf
80);
Rights of the coastal State over the continental
NOTE: Exclusive right to shelf do not affect the legal status of the
construct, to authorize the superjacent waters or of the air space above
construction, operation and use those waters and such exercise of right must not
of artificial islands and infringe or result in unjustifiable interference
installations. Jurisdiction is also with navigation and other rights and freedoms of
exclusive (UNCLOS, Art. 80); other States. [UNCLOS, Art. 78(1)(2)]
4. Marine scientific research Island

[UNCLOS, Art. 246(1)]; and
It is a naturally formed area of land, surrounded
NOTE: May be conducted only by water, which is above water at high tide.
with consent. Beyond the 200
nautical mile, the coastal State NOTE: It can have its own territorial sea, exclusive
cannot withhold consent to economic zone and continental shelf.
allow research on the ground
that the proposed research The continental shelf of an island is recognized.
project has direct significance However, rocks which cannot sustain human
to exploration or exploitation habitation or economic life shall have no
of natural resources. [UNCLOS, continental shelf or EEZ.
Art. 246(2)(6)]
High or Open seas
The waters, which do not constitute the internal exercised with due regard for the interests of
waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea and other States in their exercise of the freedom of
exclusive economic zone of a state. They are the high seas. [UNCLOS, Art. 87(2)]
beyond the jurisdiction and sovereign rights of
states. (UNCLOS, Art. 86) Flag State
It is treated as res communes or res nullius, and It refers to the State whose nationality the ship
thus, are not part of the territory of a particular possesses; for it is nationality which gives the
State. (UNCLOS, Art. 89) right to fly a country’s flag. In the high seas, a
state has exclusive jurisdiction over ships
Freedoms on the high seas sailing under its flag. It is required however,
that there exists a genuine link between the
These are the freedom of: (NOLAFS) State and the ship. [UNCLOS, Arts. 91(1), 92(2)]
1. Navigation; Duty of the flag state

2. Overflight;
3. To lay submarine cables and pipelines; A flag state has the duty to render assistance
4. To construct artificial islands and other in distress in the sense that it shall require the
installations permitted under international master of the ship, without serious danger to
law; the ship, crew or passengers, to render
5. Fishing; and assistance to any person at sea in danger of
6. Scientific research. (UNCLOS, Art. 87[1] in being lost, or to rescue persons in distress. It
relation to Art. 90) shall require the master to assist the other
ship after a collision or its crew and
NOTE: This is open to all States and shall be passengers. (UNCLOS, Art. 98)
Applicable laws to vessels sailing on the high XPN: However, the arrest or boarding of a vessel
seas sailing in the high seas may be made by a State,
other than the flag-State of such vessel, in the
GR: Vessels sailing on the high seas are subject following instances:
only to international law and to the laws of the
flag State. 1. A foreign merchant ship by the coastal State
in its internal waters, the territorial sea and
the contiguous zones for any violation of its
laws;
2. A foreign merchant ship for piracy;
3. Any ship engaged in the slave trade;
4. Any ship engaged in unauthorized
broadcasting; or
5. A ship without nationality or flying a false
flag or refusing to show its flag.
Flag of Convenience (2004 Bar)
It is a national flag flown by a ship not because

the ship or its crew has an affiliation with the
nation, but because the lax controls and modest
fees and taxes imposed by that nation have
attracted the owner to register it there.
Jurisdiction over crimes committed on board

a foreign private vessel anchored in a coastal
state
Under both the English and French rules, a crime

will be tried by a local state, if serious enough as
to compromise the peace of its port; otherwise by
the flag state, if it involves only the members of
the crew and is of such a petty nature as not to
disturb the peace of the local state.
In the French rule, it recognizes the jurisdiction of

the flag state over crimes committed on board the
vessel except if the crime disturbs the peace,
order and security of the host country. In English
rule, the host country has jurisdiction over the
crimes committed on board the vessel unless they
involve the internal management of the vessel.
Instances when a State may exercise

jurisdiction on open seas
1. Slave trade;
2. Hot pursuit;
3. Right of approach; and
4. Piracy.
Duty of every state in the transportation of

slaves
Every state shall take effective measures to

prevent and punish the transport of slaves in
ships authorized to fly its flag and to prevent the
unlawful use of the flag for that purpose. Any slave
taking refuge on board any ship, whatever its flag,

shall ipso facto be free. (UNCLOS, Art. 99) 2. Act of voluntary participation in the
operation of a ship or of an aircraft with
Doctrine of Hot Pursuit knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or
aircraft; and
It provides that the pursuit of a vessel maybe 3. Act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating
undertaken by the coastal State which has “good an act described above. (UNCLOS, Art. 101)
reason to believe that the ship has violated the
laws and regulations of that State.” NOTE: If committed by a warship, government
ship or governmental aircraft whose crew
The pursuit must start when the foreign vessel is mutinied and taken control of the ship or aircraft,
within the internal waters, the archipelagic it is assimilated to acts committed by a private
waters, the territorial waters or the contiguous ship or aircraft. (UNCLOS, Art. 102)
zone of the pursuing state. It may be carried out
only by warships or military aircraft, or any other A ship or aircraft retains its nationality
ship or aircraft properly marked for that purpose. although it has become a pirate. (UNCLOS, Art.
104)
Elements of the Doctrine Of Hot Pursuit
Warships on the high seas enjoy immunity
1. The pursuit must be commenced when the from jurisdiction of other states. They enjoy
ship is within the internal waters, territorial complete immunity. The jurisdiction of their flag
sea or the contiguous zone of the pursuing state is exclusive. (UNCLOS, Art. 95)
State, and may only be continued outside if
the pursuit has not been interrupted; Q: A Filipino owned construction company
2. It is continuous and unabated; and with principal office in Manila leased an
3. Pursuit conducted by a warship, military aircraft registered in England to ferry
aircraft, or government ships authorized to construction workers to the Middle East.
that effect. (UNCLOS, Art. 111) While on a flight to Saudi Arabia with Filipino
crew provided by the lessee, the aircraft was
Arrival Under Stress highjacked by drug traffickers. The hijackers
were captured in Damascus and sent to the
It refers to involuntary entrance of a foreign Philippines for trial. Do the courts of Manila
vessel on another state’s territory which may be have jurisdiction over the case?
due to lack of provisions, unseaworthiness of the
vessel, inclement weather, or other case of force A: Hijacking is actually piracy, as defined in People
majeure, such as pursuit of pirates. v. Lol-lo (G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922), as
robbery or forcible depredation in the high seas
Piracy under the UNCLOS without lawful authority and done animo furandi
and in the spirit and intention of universal
It is any illegal act of violence or depredation hostility. Piracy is a crime against all mankind.
committed for private ends on high seas or Accordingly, it may be punished in the competent
outside the territorial control of any state. tribunal in any country where the offender may
be found or into which he may be carried. The
Piracy consists of any of the following acts: jurisdiction on piracy unlike all other crimes has
no territorial limits. As it is against all, all so may
1. Illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act punish it. Nor does it matter that the crime was
of depredation, committed for private ends committed within the jurisdictional three-mile
by the crew or the passengers of a private limit of a foreign State for those limits, though
ship or a private aircraft and directed: neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes.
a. On the high seas, against another ship or
aircraft, or against persons or property Land-locked states
on board such ship or aircraft;
b. Against a ship, aircraft, persons or These are states which do not border the seas and
property in a place outside the do not have EEZ.
jurisdiction of any State.
Geographically disadvantaged states
1. Coastal states which can claim
no EEZ of their own; and
2. Coastal states, including states bordering
closed or semi-closed states, whose
geographical situations make them
dependent on the exploitation of the living
resources of the EEZ of other coastal states in
the region. [UNCLOS, Art. 70(2)]
Rights of land-locked states and

geographically disadvantaged states
1. Land-locked States shall have the right to

participate, on an equitable basis, the
exploitation of an appropriate part of the
surplus of the living resources of the
exclusive economic zones of coastal States of
the same sub region or region, taking into
account the relevant economic and
geographical circumstances of all States
concerned [UNCLOS, Art. 69(1)]; and
2. Developed land-locked States shall be
entitled to participate in the exploitation of
living resources only in the exclusive
economic zones of developed coastal States
of the same sub region or region having
regard to the extent to which the coastal
State, in giving access to other States to the
living resources of its exclusive economic
zone, has taken into account the need to
minimize detrimental effects on fishing
communities and economic dislocation in
States whose nationals have habitually fished
in the zone. {UNCLOS, Art. 70(1)]
NOTE: This is without prejudice to arrangements

agreed upon in sub region or regions where the
coastal State may grant to land-locked States of
the same sub region or region equal or
preferential rights for the exploitation of the
living resources in the EEZ. [UNCLOS, Art. 70(6)]
This however shall not apply in case of a coastal

State whose economy is overwhelmingly
dependent on the exploitation of the living
resources of its EEZ. (UNCLOS, Art. 71)
EXTENT and DEFINITION RIGHTS and POWERS OF STATES
1. Rights under existing agreement
on the part of the third states
These are waters enclosed by the should be respected.
archipelagic baselines, regardless of
their depth or distance from the coast. 2. The traditional fishing rights and
Internal Waters All waters (part of the sea, rivers, lakes, other legitimate activities of the
etc.) landwards from the baseline of the immediately adjacent
territory. Sovereignty over these waters neighboring States.
is the same extent as sovereignty over
land, and it is not subject to the rights of 3. Existing submarine cables laid by
innocent passage. other States and “passing through
its waters without making a
windfall” as well as the
maintenance and replacement of
such cables upon being notified of
their location and the intention to
repair or replace them.
Territorial Seas are defined by historic

Territorial Sea right or treaty limits. Coastal states exercise sovereignty
As defined in the Convention on the over Territorial sea and it extends to
Law of the Sea, it has a uniform breadth the airspace over the territorial sea
of 12 miles measured from the lower and to its seabed and subsoil.
water mark of the coast.
It is the zone adjacent to the territorial The coastal state does not have
Contiguous Zone sea. The contiguous zone may not sovereignty over the contiguous zone
extend more than 24 nautical miles because the contiguous zone is a zone
beyond the baseline from which the of jurisdiction for a particular purpose,
breadth of the territorial sea is not of sovereignty.
measured 12 nautical miles from the
territorial sea. State may exercise control as is
necessary to:
1. Prevent infringement of its

customs, fiscal, immigration,
or sanitary laws within its
territory or its territorial sea
or
2. Punish such infringement.
It gives the coastal State sovereign States may exercise;

rights overall economic resources of the 1. Sovereign rights;
Exclusive Economic sea, sea-bed and subsoil in an area 2. Jurisdictional rights; and
Zone extending not more than 200 3. Other rights and duties
nautical miles beyond the baseline provided for in the Law of the
from which the territorial sea is Sea Convention.
measured.
(Please see discussion on rights of the
coastal state in the EEZ, p. 50)
High Seas They are all parts of the sea that are not They are beyond the jurisdiction and
included in the territorial sea or in the sovereign rights of state.
internal waters of a state.
(Article 1, Geneva Convention) It is treated as res communes or res
nullius, and thus, are not part of the
territory of a particular State.
NOTE: The person shall be deemed to be a national of the

INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF one in which he ordinarily exercises civil and political
THE SEA rights. (Ibid)
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 2. There should be no fewer than three members from each
(ITLoS) geographical group to be established by the UN General
Assembly [UNCLOS, Annex VI, Statute of ITLoS, Art. 3(2)];
It is an independent judicial body established by
the Third United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea that adjudicates disputes arising out of
the interpretation and application of the
Convention. It was established after Ambassador
Arvido Pardo Malta addressed the General
Assembly of the United Nations and called for “an
effective international regime over the seabed
and ocean floor beyond a clearly defined national
jurisdiction”. Its seat is in Hamburg, Germany.
Part XV of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of

the Sea requires States to settle peacefully any
dispute concerning the Convention. Failing a
bilateral settlement, it provides that any dispute
shall be submitted for compulsory settlement to
one of the tribunals having jurisdiction. (UNCLOS,
Art. 286) These include the ITLos, the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), and arbitral or
special arbitral tribunals constituted under the
UNCLOS.
The ITLoS is composed of 21 independent

members elected by the States partied to the
UNCLOS from among persons with recognized
competence in the field of the law of the sea and
representing the principal legal systems of the
world.
Jurisdiction of the tribunal
Its jurisdiction comprises all disputes and all

applications submitted to it and all matters
specifically provided for in any other agreement
which confers jurisdiction to the Tribunal.
Rules with regard to membership in the

Tribunal
1. No two members of the Tribunal may be

nationals of the same State [UNCLOS, Annex
VI, Statute of ITLoS, Art. 3(1)];
3. No member of the Tribunal of ITLoS, Art. 8(2)]; or
may exercise any political or b. President should give the member notice
administrative function, or accordingly. [UNCLOS, Annex VI, Statute
associate actively with or be of ITLoS, Art. 8(3)]
financially interested in any of
the operations of any NOTE: Any doubt shall be resolved by decision of
enterprise concerned with the the majority of other members of the Tribunal
exploration for or exploitation present. (UNCLOS Annex VII, Arbitration, Art. 7, 8)
of the resources of the sea or
the seabed or other commercial Members enjoy diplomatic privileges and
use of the sea or the seabed immunities. (UNCLOS Annex VII, Arbitration, Art.
[UNCLOS, Annex VI, Statute of 10)
ITLoS, Art. 7(1)];
4. No member of the Tribunal Jurisdiction of the Seabed Dispute Chamber
may act as agent, counsel or
advocate in any case [UNCLOS, The categories of its jurisdiction are the following:
Annex VI, Statute of ITLoS, Art. 1. Disputes between State Parties concerning
7(2)]; the interpretation or application of treaty or
5. No member of the Tribunal convention may, in accordance with such
may participate in the decision agreement, be submitted to the Tribunal.
of any case in which he has 2. Disputes between a State Party and the
previously taken part as agent, Authority concerning:
counsel or advocate for one of a. Acts or omissions of the Authority or of a
the parties, or as a member of a State Party alleged to be violations of the
national or international court convention; or
or tribunal, or in any other b. Acts of the Authority alleged to be in
capacity [UNCLOS, Annex VI, excess of jurisdiction of a misuse of
Statute of ITLoS, Art. 8(1)]; and power.
6. If for some special reason a 3. Disputes between parties to a contract, being
member of the Tribunal should State Parties, the Authority or the Enterprise,
not sit in a particular case: state enterprises and natural or juridical
a. Member should inform the persons concerning:
President of the Tribunal a. Interpretation or application of a
[UNCLOS, Annex VI, Statute relevant contract or a plan of work; or
b. Acts or omissions of a party to the Convention.
contract relating to activities in the Area
and directed to the other party or THE WEST PHILIPPINE SEA CASE
directly affecting its legitimate interest.
Arguments of the Republic of the
4. Disputes between the Authority and a Philippines (RP):
prospective contractor who has been
sponsored by a State. 1. Declarations that the Philippines’ and
5. Disputes between the Authority and a State China’s respective rights and obligations
Party, a state enterprise or a natural or in regard to the waters, seabed, and
juridical person sponsored by a State Party. maritime features of the South china Sea
6. Any other disputes for which the jurisdiction are governed by the UNCLOS; and that
of the Chamber is specifically provided for in China’s claims based on “historic rights”
the Convention. encompassed within its so- called “Nine-
dash Line” are inconsistent with the
Alternative means for the settlement of UNCLOS and therefore invalid;
disputes established by the Convention 2. Determinations as to whether, under the
UNCLOS, certain maritime features
Aside from the ITLOS, it also established the claimed by both states are properly
International Court of Justice, an arbitral tribunal characterized as islands, rocks, low tide
constituted in accordance with Annex VII to the elevations, or submerged banks. The
Convention and a special arbitral tribunal Philippines claims in particular that
constituted in accordance with Annex VIII of the Scarborough Shoal and eight of such
features in the Spratlys are low-tide
elevations or submerged banks that merely
generate a territorial sea (TS), not an China contested the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on the
exclusive economic zone (EEZ) or continental following grounds:
shelf (CS); and
3. Declarations that China has violated the 1. That the essence of the subject-matter of the
UNCLOS by interfering with the Philippines’ arbitration is the territorial sovereignty over
sovereign rights and freedoms, through several maritime features in the South China
construction and fishing activities that have Sea (SCS), which is beyond the scope of the
harmed the marine environment. Convention, and does not concern the
interpretation or application of the
Arguments of the People’s Republic of China Convention;
(PRC): 2. That the two countries have agreed, through
bilateral instruments and the Declaration on
the Conduct of Parties in the SCS, to settle
their relevant disputes through negotiations.
Thus, the Philippines’ resort to arbitration is
a breach of its obligations under international
law; and
3. Even assuming, arguendo, that the subject-
matter of the arbitration were concerned
with the interpretation or application of the
Convention, that subject-matter would
constitute an integral part of maritime
delimitation, which is covered by China’s
2006 declaration excluding maritime
delimitation from its acceptance of
compulsory dispute settlement procedures
under the UNCLOS.
Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility
The Tribunal found that the submissions of the

Philippines did not per se involve disputes
concerning sovereignty or maritime boundary
delimitation, which are among the issues that
may be excluded by States from the subject-
matter jurisdiction of compulsory dispute
settlement procedures entailing binding decisions
under the UNCLOS. However, this exclusion of the
issue of sovereignty or maritime boundary
delimitation is premised on the Philippines’
position that the features claimed by China
belong to the Philippines; are low-tide elevations
or rocks only that do not generate either a
Territorial Sea (TS), EEZ, or a Continental Shelf
(CS), or EEZ or a CS only; and that as such, in the
case that any/some/all of these features are
found to belong to China, the maritime
entitlements they will generate, if at all, will not
overlap with the Philippines’ own maritime
entitlements.
The above reasoning will also determine whether

China acted unlawfully with respect to the
enjoyment of the Philippines of its rights, and the
obligation to protect and preserve the marine
environment, within the disputed areas. The
Tribunal also acknowledged that other findings on the merits may preclude its jurisdiction, where
fishing and fisheries related law enforcement, and considered part of the high seas where vessels from any State
military activities, may be in issue. With respect can fish and navigate
to the Scarborough Shoal, however, the Tribunal
found that the exceptions under Art. 297 and 298
cannot oust it of jurisdiction, given that the
activities complained of involve traditional
fishing rights and other events occurring in the
territorial sea, a maritime area over which the
said provisions have no application.
Finally, the Tribunal asked the Philippines to

clarify the content and narrow the scope of its last
submission, requesting a declaration that “China
shall desist from further unlawful claims and
activities.”
Tribunal’s Decision on the Merits of the

Philippines’ Claim
1. The ‘nine-dash line’ and China’s claim to

historic rights in the maritime areas of the South
China Sea
Whether China has historic rights to resources in

the South China Sea beyond the limits of the
maritime zones that it is entitled to pursuant to
the Convention
• Based on the history of the Convention and its

provisions concerning maritime zones, the
Convention was intended to comprehensively
allocate the rights of States to maritime areas
• The question of pre-existing rights to resources
was considered during the negotiations on the
creation of exclusive economic zone and a
number of States wished to preserve historic
fishing rights in the new zone: this position was
rejected; the final text of the Convention gives
other States only a limited right of access to
fisheries in the exclusive economic zone and no
rights to petroleum or mineral resources
• China’s claim to historic rights to resources was
incompatible with the detailed allocation of rights
and maritime zones in the Convention: that China
had historic rights to resources in South China
Sea waters, such rights were extinguished when
the Convention entered into force to the extent
that they were incompatible with the
Convention’s system of maritime zones
Whether China actually had historic rights to

resources in the South China Sea prior to the entry
into force of the Convention
• Prior to the Convention, the waters of the South

China Sea beyond the territorial sea were legally
• Historical navigation and fishing China Sea have been heavily modified by recent
by China in the waters of the South land reclamation and construction; the
China Sea were an exercise of high Convention classifies features on the basis of their
sea freedoms rather than a historic natural condition
right; there is no evidence that • Evaluation of features based on the assistance of
China had historically exercised an expert hydrographer and archival materials
exclusive control over the waters of and historical hydrographic surveys
the South China Sea or prevented -Scarborough Shoal, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron
other States from exploiting their Reef, and Fiery Cross Reef are high-tide
resources features, and
• Between the Philippines and -Subi Reef, Hughes Reef, Mischief Reef, and
China, there was no legal basis for Second Thomas Shoal were submerged at
China to claim historic rights to high tide in their natural condition
resources, in excess of the rights -But Gaven Reef (North) and McKennan Reef
provided by the Convention, within are high-tide features
the sea areas falling within the
‘nine-dash line’ Whether any of the features claimed by China
could generate an entitlement to maritime zones
2. The status of features in the South China Sea beyond 12 nautical miles
Whether certain coral reefs claimed • Art. 121 of the Convention: islands generate an
by China are or are not above water entitlement to an exclusive economic zone of 200
at high tide nautical miles and to a continental shelf, but rocks
which cannot sustain human habitation or
• Arts. 13 and 121: features that are economic life of their own shall have no exclusive
above water at high tide generate economic zone or continental shelf — closely
an entitlement to at least a 12- linked to the expansion of coastal State
nautical mile territorial sea; jurisdiction and intended to prevent insignificant
features that are submerged at high features from generating large entitlements to
tide generate no entitlement to maritime zones that would infringe on
maritime zones entitlements of inhabited territory or on high seas
• Many of the reefs in the South and the area of the seabed reserved for the
common heritage of mankind
• Entitlements of a feature depend on the a) historical economic activity had been
objective capacity of a feature, b) its natural extractive in nature
conditions to sustain either c) a stable community • All high-tide features in the Spratly Islands
of people or d) economic activity that is neither are legally “rocks” that do not generate an
dependent on outside resources nor purely exclusive economic zone or continental shelf
extractive in nature • The Convention does not provide for a group
• Even if many of the features are currently of islands (such as the Spratly Islands) to
controlled by one or other of the littoral States, generate maritime zones collectively as a unit
which have constructed installations and
maintained personnel there and have been 3. Chinese activities in the South China Sea
modified to improve their habitability (by land Lawfulness of various Chinese actions in the
reclamation and construction of infrastructure), South China Sea under the Convention
the current presence of official personnel on
many of the features does not establish their • Because Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal
capacity, in their natural condition, to sustain a and Reed Bank are submerged at high tide and
stable community of people and considered that are not overlapped by any possible
historical evidence of habitation or economic life entitlement of China, they from part of the
was more relevant to the objective capacity of the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf
features of the Philippines; the Convention is clear in
• Temporary of use of features (as in by small allocating sovereign rights to the Philippines
groups of Chinese fishermen and from other with respect to sea areas in its exclusive
states in the Spratly Islands and Japanese fishing economic zone
and guano mining enterprises) did not amount to • China had violated the Philippines’
inhabitation by a stable community and that all sovereign rights with respect to its exclusive
economic zone and continental shelf: China had a)
interfered with Philippine petroleum exploration
at Reed Bank, b) purported to prohibit fishing by Traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal
Philippine vessels within the Philippines’
exclusive economic zone, c) protected and failed • Fishermen from both China and the Philippines
to prevent Chinese fishermen from fishing within and from other countries had long fished at the
the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone at Scarborough Shoal and had traditional fishing
Mischief Reef and Second Thomas Shoal, and d) rights in the area
constructed installations and artificial islands as • Scarborough Shoal is above water at high tide so
Mischief Reef without the authorization of the it generates an entitlement to a territorial sea, its
Philippines surrounding waters do not form part of the
exclusive economic zone, and traditional fishing
rights were not extinguished by the Convention
• China had violated its duty to respect the
traditional fishing rights of Philippine fishermen
by halting access to the Shoal after May 2012
Effect of China’s actions on the marine environment
• China’s large scale land reclamation and

construction of artificial islands at seven features
in the Spratly Islands has caused severe harm to
the coral reef environment
• China violated its obligations under Articles 192
and 194 of the Convention to preserve and
protect the marine environment with respect to
fragile ecosystems and the habitat of depleted,
threatened, or endangered species
• Chinese fishermen were engaged in the
harvesting of endangered sea turtles, corals and
giant clams on a substantial scale in the South
China Sea using methods that inflicted severe
damage on the coral reef environment; Chinese
authorities were aware of these and failed to
fulfill their due diligence obligation under the
Convention to stop them
Lawfulness of conduct of Chinese law enforcement

vessels at Scarborough Shoal in April and May
2012 (Chinese vessels sought to physically
obstruct Philippine vessels from approaching or
gaining entrance to the Shoal)
• Assisted by an independent expert on

navigational safety and expert evidence on
navigational safety provided by the Philippines
• Chinese law enforcement vessels had repeatedly
approached the Philippine vessels at high speed
and to cross ahead of them at close distances,
creating serious risk of collision and danger to
Philippine ships and personnel
• China breached its obligations under the
Convention on the International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972), and Art. 94 of
the Convention concerning maritime safety
4. Aggravation of the dispute between the parties

Whether China’s recent large-scale land
reclamation and construction of artificial islands Process for securing protection of marks
at seven features in the Spratly Islands since the through international registration
commencement of the arbitration had aggravated
the dispute between the Parties NOTE: Any reference to an “office” shall be
construed as a reference to the office that is in
• Parties engaged in a dispute settlement charge, on behalf of a Contracting Party, of the
procedure have a duty to refrain from registration of marks, and any reference to
aggravating or extending the dispute or disputes “marks” shall be construed to pertain to
at issue during the pendency of the settlement trademarks and service marks.
process
• China has a) build a large artificial island on 1. Where an application for the registration of a
Mischief Reef which is within the exclusive mark has been filed with the Office of a
economic zone of the Philippines, b) caused Contracting Party or registered in the register
permanent harm to the coral reef ecosystem, and of the of the Office of a Contracting party, the
c) permanently destroyed evidence of the natural person in whose name that application (basic
condition of the features in question application) or that registration (basic
• China violated its obligations to refrain from registration) stands may, subject to the
aggravating or extending the Parties’ disputes provisions of the Madrid Protocol, secure
during the pendency of the settlement process protection for his mark in the territory of the
Contracting Parties, by obtaining the
5. Future conduct of the parties registration of that mark in the register of the
International Bureau of the World
Philippines request for declaration that China shall Intellectual Property Organization, provided
respect the rights and freedoms of the Philippines that: where the basic application has been
and comply with its duties under the Convention filed with the Office of a Contracting State or
Organization or where the basic registration
• Both the Philippines and China have accepted has been made by such an Office, the person
the Convention and general obligations of good in whose name that application or
faith define and regulate their conduct registration stands is a national of that
• The root of the disputes at issue in this Contracting State or of a State member of the
arbitration lies not in any intention of any Party Contracting Organization, or is domiciled, or
to infringe on the legal rights of the other but in has a real and effective industrial or
the fundamentally different understandings of commercial establishment, in the said
their respective rights under the Convention in Contracting State or State member.
the waters of the South China Sea 2. The application for international registration
(international application) shall be filed with
(The Republic of the Philippines v. The People’s the International Bureau through the
Republic of China, Case No. 2013-19 in the intermediary of the Office with which the
Permanent Court of Arbitration Before the Arbitral basic application was filed or by which the
Tribunal constituted under UNCLOS Annex VII, July basic registration was made, as the case may
12, 2016, case brief provided by UP Law Institute be.
for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea)
Territory of a Contracting Party
MADRID PROTOCOL AND THE PARIS
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF Where the Contracting Party is a State, the
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY territory of that State, and where the Contracting
Party is an intergovernmental organization, the
Madrid Protocol territory in which the constituting treaty of that
intergovernmental organization applies. (Madrid
It is the Protocol relating to the Madrid Protocol, Art. 2)
Agreement which governs the system of
international registration of marks. The system The following may use the system:
makes it possible to protect a mark in a large
number of countries by obtaining an international 1. A natural person; or
registration which has effect in each of the 2. Legal entity having a connection, through
Contracting Parties that has been designated. establishment, domicile or nationality, with a
Contracting Party to the Madrid Protocol or
Agreement. (Madrid Protocol, Art. 2)
Moreover, a period of grace of 6 months shall be
Effects on an international registration allowed for such renewal. (Madrid Protocol, Art. 7,
pars. 3 & 4)
The effects of an international registration in each
designated Contracting Party are, as from the Paris Convention on protection of industrial
date of the international registration, the same as property
if the mark had been deposited directly with the
Office of that Contracting Party. (Madrid Protocol, It applies to industrial properties in the widest
Art. 4) sense. It includes patents, marks, industrial
designs, utility models, trade names, geographical
Advantages of the Madrid system indications and the repression of unfair
competition.
Instead of filing many national applications in all
countries of interest, in several different Industrial property
languages, in accordance with different national
procedural rules and regulations and paying Shall be understood in the broadest sense,and
several different fees, an international application shall apply not only to industry or commerce
may be obtained by simply filing one application proper, but likewise to agricultural and extractive
with the International Bureau (through the Office industries and to all manufactured or natural
of the home country), in one language (either products, for example, wines, grain, tobacco leaf,
English or French) and paying only one set of fruit, cattle, minerals, mineral waters, beer,
fees. flowers and flour. (Paris Convention, Art. 1)
Also, renewal entails simple payment of the BASIC PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL

necessary fees, every 10 years, to the ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
International Bureau.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 6 OF THE PHILIPPINE
Likewise, if the international organization is CONSTITUTION
assigned to a third party or any other change,
such as a change in name and/or address, has “The state shall protect and advance the right of
occurred, this may be recorded with effect for all the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in
designated Contracting Parties by means of a accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature”
single procedural step.
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Period of validity of international registration
under the Madrid Protocol It is the branch of public international law
comprising "those substantive, procedural and
10 years, with possibility of renewal under the institutional rules which have as their primary
conditions set forth in Art. 7 thereof. (Madrid objective the protection of the environment," the
Protocol, Art. 6) term environment being understood as
encompassing "both the features and the
Requirements for renewal of international products of the natural world and those of human
registration civilization.
1. Renewal for a period of only 10 years from Environmental concerns, related to Human
the expiry of the preceding period; Rights
2. Payment of the basic fee; and
3. It must not bring about any change in the The protection of the environment is a vital part
international registration in its latest form. of contemporary human rights doctrine, for it is a
(Madrid Protocol, Art. 7) sine qua non for numerous human rights such as
the right to health, and the right to life itself.
NOTE: The International Bureau shall, by sending (Danube Dam Case, ICJ Rep 1997)
an unofficial notice, remind the holder of the
international registration and its exact date of
expiry six months before the expiry of the term of PRINCIPLE 21 OF THE STOCKHOLM
protection. DECLARATION
Stockholm Declaration
responsibility that they bear in the international
The Stockholm Declaration, or the Declaration of pursuit to sustainable development in view of the
the United Nations Conference on the Human pressures their societies place on the global
Environment, was adopted on June 16, 1972 in environment and of the technologies and
Stockholm, Sweden. It contains 26 principles and financial resources they command.” (Rio
109 recommendations regarding the Declaration, Principle 7)
preservation and enhancement of the right to a
healthy environment. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration, commonly

known as the Precautionary Principle states:
This declares that States have:
1. The sovereign right to exploit their own In order to protect the environment, the
resources pursuant to their own precautionary approach shall be widely applied
environmental policies; and by States according to their capabilities. Where
2. The responsibility to ensure that activities there are threats of serious damage, lack of full
within their jurisdiction or control do not scientific certainly shall not be used as a reason
cause damage to the environment of other for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent
States or of areas beyond the limits of environmental degradation.
national jurisdiction or otherwise known as
the Good Neighborliness Principle. NOTE: This principle advocates that the potential
(Sarmiento, 2007) harm should be addressed even with minimal
predictability at hand. The Precautionary
Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration is a Principle requires a high degree of prudence on
part of customary law the part of the stakeholders. Decision makers are
not only mandated to account for scientific
The Court recognizes that the environment is uncertainty but can also take positive action, e.g.,
daily under threat and that the use of nuclear restrict a product or activity even when there is
weapons could constitute a catastrophe for the scientific uncertainty.
environment. The court also recognizes that the
environment is not an abstraction but represents Under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure for
the living space, the quality of life and the very Environmental Cases, the Precautionary Principle
human beings, including generations unborn. The is adopted as a rule of evidence. The Supreme
existence of the general obligation of States to Court’s adoption of the Precautionary Principle in
ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and the newly promulgated Rules of Procedure for
control respect the environment of other States Environmental Cases affords plaintiffs a better
or of areas beyond national control is now part of chance of proving their cases where the risks of
the corpus of international law relating to the environmental harm are not easy to prove.
environment. (ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality
of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, July 8, Bt Talong Case
1996)
Greenpeace Southeast Asia and farmer-scientist
Principle of Common but Differentiated coalition MASIPAG asked the CA to stop the
Responsibility planting of BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) talong in
test fields. CA, citing precautionary principle,
This principle requires the protection of specified granted the petition. CA stated that “when human
environmental resource or area as common activities may lead to threats of serious and
responsibility but takes into account the differing irreversible damage to the environment that id
circumstances of certain States in the discharge of scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall
such responsibilities. [Framework Convention on be taken to avoid or diminish the threat”. The SC
Climate Change, Art. 3(1)] permanently stopped the field testing for Bt
Talong, upholding the decision of the CA which
It is also embodied in the Rio Declaration which stopped the field trials for the genetically
states: “…In view of the different contributions to modified eggplant. The SC is the first in the world
global environmental degradation, States have to adopt the precautionary principle regarding
common but differentiated responsibilities. The GMO products in its decision (International
developed countries acknowledge the Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Inc. health-related fears that petitioners cleave on
V. Greenpeace Southeast Asia Philippines, supra). to
When there is lack of full scientific certainty in

establishing a causal link between human activity
and environmental effect, the court shall apply
the precautionary principle in resolving the case
before it, The constitutional right if the people to
a balanced and healthful ecology shall be given
the benefit if the doubt (Rule 20, Sec. 1, Rules of
Procedure for Environmental Cases;
(International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-biotech Applications, Inc. V. Greenpeace
Southeast Asia Philippines, G.R. No. 209271,
July 26, 2016 PER J. PERLAS-BERNABE).
Q: NAPOCOR began constructing steel towers

to support overhead high tension cables in
connection with its Sucat-Araneta-Balintawak
Power Transmission Project. Residents of
Dasmariñas Village were alarmed by the sight
of the towering steel towers and scoured the
internet on the possible adverse health effects
of such structures. They got hold of published
articles and studies linking the incidence of a
fecund of illnesses to exposure to
electromagnetic fields. The illnesses range
from cancer to leukemia.
Petitioners filed a complaint for the Issuance

of a TRO and/or a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction against NAPOCOR. This was
granted by the trial court. The Court of
Appeals reversed the order, holding that the
proscription on injunctions against
infrastructure projects of the government is
clearly mandated by Sec. 1 of
P.D. 1818. Is the issuance of a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction justified, despite the
mandate of P.D. 1818?
A: Whether there is a violation of petitioners’

constitutionally protected right to health is a
question of law that invested the trial court with
jurisdiction to issue a TRO and subsequently, a
preliminary injunction. This question of law
divests the case from the protective mantle of
Presidential Decree No. 1818.
There is adequate evidence on record to justify

the conclusion that the project of NAPOCOR
probably imperils the health and safety of the
petitioners so as to justify the issuance by the
trial court of a writ of preliminary injunction. The
health concerns are at the very least, far from
imaginary.
In hindsight, if, after trial, it turns out that the

have adequate confirmation in fact and in law, the
questioned project of NAPOCOR then suffers from a 1. States have the sovereign right to exploit
paucity of purpose, no matter how noble the purpose their own resources pursuant to their own
may be. For what use will modernization serve if it environmental policies, and the responsibility
proves to be a scourge on an individual’s to ensure that activities within their
fundamental right, not just to health and safety, but, jurisdiction or control do not cause damage
ostensibly, to life preservation itself, in all of its to the environment of other states or of areas
desired quality? (Hernandez v. NAPOCOR, G.R. No. beyond the limits of national jurisdiction
145328, March 23, 2006) (Principle 2);
2. Right to development must be fulfilled so as
Polluter Pays Principle to equitably meet development needs of
present and future generations (Principle 3);
It means that the party responsible for producing the and
pollutants must bear responsibility for shouldering 3. In order to achieve sustainable development,
the costs of the damage done to the environment. It environmental protection shall constitute an
is expressly stated in Principle 16 of the Rio integral part of the development process and
Declaration on Environment and Development: cannot be considered in isolation from it
“National authorities should endeavor to promote (Principle 4).
the internalization of environment costs and the use
of economic instruments, taking into account the Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear
the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public It means air pollution whose physical origin is
interest and without distorting international trade situated wholly or in part within the area under
and investment”. (Rio Declaration, Principle 16) the national jurisdiction of one State and which
has adverse effects in the area under the
Other principles of International jurisdiction of another State at such a distance
Environmental Law set forth in the Rio that is not generally possible to distinguish the
Declaration contribution of individual emission sources or
groups of sources. (1979 Convention on Long- exploiting natural resources in a manner which is
Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Art. 1) "sustainable," or "prudent," or "rational," or "wise," or
"appropriate";
Two Fundamental Principles of liability for 3. Principle of equitable use or intragenerational equity – The
transboundary pollution under international equitable use of natural resources, which implies that use
law by one state, must take into account the needs of other
states; and
a) First, a state must show material damage and 4. Principle of integration – The need to ensure that
causation to be entitled to legal relief; and environmental considerations are integrated into economic
b) Second, a state has a duty to prevent, and and other developmental plans, programs and projects, and
may be held responsible for pollution by that development needs are taken into account in applying
private parties within its jurisdiction if such environmental objectives.
pollution results in demonstrable injury to
another state. (Trail Smelter Case, US v. Rules for the protection of the environment in armed
Canada, 1941) conflict
Sustainable Development 1. Each State Party undertakes not to engage in military or

other hostile use of environmental modification techniques
It is a development that meets the needs of the having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the
present without compromising the ability of means of destruction, damage or injury to any other Party
future generations to meet their own needs. State. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or other
Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques or the
Principles that embody sustainable Environmental Modification Convention [ENMOD], Art. 1)
development
1. Principle of intergenerational equity – The

need to preserve natural resources for the
benefit of future generations;
2. Principle of sustainable use – The aim of
NOTE: Environmental Modification
Techniques refers to any
technique for the changing
through the deliberate
manipulation of natural
processes the dynamics,
composition or structure of the
earth including its biota
lithosphere, hydrosphere and
atmosphere or outer space.
(ENMOD, Art. II)
2. Prohibition of the employment

of methods or means of
warfare which are intended, or
may be expected, to cause
widespread, long-term and
severe damage to the natural
environment. (Protocol I
Additional to the Geneva
Convention of 1949, Art. 35(3))
3. Pollution
It means any introduction by man,

directly or indirectly, of substance
or energy into the environment
resulting in deleterious effects of
such nature as to endanger human
health, harm living resources,
ecosystem, and material property
and impair amenities or interfere
with other legitimate uses of the
environment. (Magallona, citing
ILA Reports, Vol. 60, 1982)

2019 UST Golden Notes POLITICAL LAW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019 UST Golden Notes POLITICAL LAW

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

2019 UST Golden Notes POLITICAL LAW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL LAW

2019 GOLDEN NOTES

Academics Committee USTAddress:

Tel. No: (02) 731

No portion of this material may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines

Printed in the Philippines August 2019.

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON

POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE

SARA D. LARCE POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE ASST. HEAD

ATTY. AL CONRAB B. ESPALDON

ATTY. NILO T. DIVINA REV. FR. ISIDRO C. ABAÑO, O.P.

ATTY. ARTHUR B. CAPILI

ATTY. ELGIN MICHAEL C. PEREZ

JUDGE PHILIP A. AGUINALDO

LENY G. GADANIA, R.G.C.

Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier

Agcaoili Judge Charito M.

Sawali Atty. Carlo L. Cruz

Atty. Enrique V. Dela Cruz

Atty. Rene B. Gorospe

Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

Atty. Rafaelito M. Garayblas

Atty. Anicia C. Marquez

Atty. Edwin R. Sandoval

Atty. Mauricio C. Ulep

II. Legislative Department..................................................................................................................................................19

III. Executive Department...................................................................................................................................................53

IV. Judicial Department.......................................................................................................................................................80

VI. Bill of Rights....................................................................................................................................................................100

VII. Citizenship 168

VIII. Law on Public Officers..............................................................................................................................................172

IX. Administrative Law......................................................................................................................................................213

XI. Local Governments.......................................................................................................................................................246

Xll. National Economy and Patrimony.........................................................................................................................281

XIII. Social Justice and Human Rights..........................................................................................................................291

XV. Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports............................................................................294

XVI. The Family 298

XVII. Amendments or Revisions of the Constitution...............................................................................................298

XVIII. Public International Law......................................................................................................................................303

THE RISK OF USE OF THIS BAR

Branch of public law that deals with the

Scope of Political Law

Composition of the Philippine Territory

The national territory comprises the Philippine

Q: William, a private American citizen and

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 2

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 6

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 8

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 14

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 18

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 22

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 24

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 26

U NIVERSITYOFS ANTOT OMAS 22

Q: Congress enacted a law reapportioning the

A: NO. Sec. 5(3), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution

The provision draws a plain and clear distinction

Q: Congress passed a law providing for the

A: There is no need for a plebiscite. CDO City