ARTICLE VIII JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested

in one Supreme Court and in such lower
courts as may be established by law.
Supreme Court is the only court which is
created by the Constitution.
Lower Courts:
CA, RTC, MTC, MCTC, METC, SB, CTA, Sharia
Courts, Sharia Circuit Court.
Quasi-judicial courts are special courts for they
perform similar judicial functions.
Traditional Concept of judicial power
Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts
of
justice
to
settle
actual
controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable,
Expanded power of judicial review
And to determine 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.
Q. What are the difference, if any, between
the scope of judicial power under the 1987
constitution on one hand, and the 1935 and
1973 Constitutions on the other?
A:
The scope of judicial power under the
1987 Constitution is broader than its scope
under the 1935 and 1973 Constitution because
of the second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution, which states that it
includes the duty to determine 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. This provision limits resort to the
political question doctrine and broadens the
scope of juridical inquiry into areas which the
courts under the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions would normally have left to the
political departments to decide.
Political Question-are questions of policy, they
involve the wisdom of an act, or the efficacy or
necessity of a particular measure:
Sprung from the Doctrine of Separation of
Powers.
1. Those questions which are to be decided by
the people in their sovereign capacity;
E.g. Recall = is a mode of removing a local
official even before the end of his term on the
sole ground of loss of confidence (Verdone vs.
Comelec);
Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs.
Pres. Aquino and Estrada vs. Desierto
The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not
a justiciable matter. It belongs to the realm of
politics where only the people of the Philippines
are the judge. And the people have made the
judgment, they have accepted the government of
President Corazon C. Aquino, which is in
effective control of the entire country so that it
is not merely a de facto government but in fact
and in law a de jure government. Moreover, the
community of nations has recognized the
legitimacy of the present government.
The legitimacy of the Arroyo government is a
justiciable matter. The principal issues for

resolution require the proper interpretation of

certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution,
thus the respondents invocation of the doctrine
of PQ is but a foray in the dark.
EDSA I
Political Question
Extra-constitutional =
the legitimacy of the
new govt that resulted
from
a
successful
revolution cannot be
subject
to
judicial
review, for it orbited
out
of
the
Constitutional loop
Exercise of the people
power of revolution

EDSA II
Legal Question
Intra-Constitutional=
the resignation of the
sitting president and
the succession by the
VP are subject to
judicial review

Exercise
of
people
power of freedom of
speech and freedom of
assembly to petition
the govt for redress to
grievances that only
affected the office of
the President.

2. Those, in regard to which, full discretionary

authority
has
been
delegated
by
the
Constitution to the executive or legislative
branch. (Tanada vs. Cuenco)
E.g. Calling-out Power (IBP vs. Zamora)
Art. VII Section 18. The President shall be the
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary,
he may call out such armed forces to prevent or
suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
In here the President necessarily
exercise a power solely vested in his wisdom;
unless the petitioner can show that the exercise
of such discretion was gravely abused, the
Presidents exercise of judgment deserves to be
accorded respect from this Court.
Q. How about the other powers to suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under
martial law as provided in Art. VII, Secs 18, is it
a political question?
A. No, such powers involve a curtailment of
rights, thus it is bound by great limitations. The
Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and
must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing. (Art. VII, Sec 18, par.
3)
David vs. GMA
Under the calling-out power, the President
may summon the armed forces to aid him in
suppressing lawless violence, invasion and
rebellion. He cannot invoke a greater power
when he wishes to act under a lesser power.
There lies the wisdom of our Constitution, the
greater the power, the greater are the
limitations.
Justice Mendoza also stated that PP 1017
is not a declaration of Martial Law. It is no
more than a call by the President to the armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence.
As such, it cannot be used to justify acts that
only under a valid declaration of Martial Law
can be done. Its use for any other purpose is a
perversion of its nature and scope, and any act
done contrary to its command is ultra vires.
1

Justice Mendoza further stated that

specifically, (a) arrests and seizures without
judicial warrants; (b) ban on public assemblies;
(c) take-over of news media and agencies and
press censorship; and (d) issuance of
Presidential Decrees, are powers which can be
exercised by the President as Commander-inChief only where there is a valid declaration of
Martial Law or suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus.
Based on the above disquisition, it is
clear that PP 1017 is not a declaration of
Martial Law. It is merely an exercise of
President Arroyos calling-out power for the
armed forces to assist her in preventing or
suppressing lawless violence.
Following requisites must be present for the
exercise of the power of judicial review:
a.) There must be an actual case or controversy
involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of
judicial determination.
Q. What is an "actual case or controversy"?
A. An "actual case or controversy" means an
existing case or controversy which is 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.
(IBP vs. Zamora)
ICJ can render an advisory opinion on legal
questions and settle in accordance with
international law the legal disputes submitted to
it by the states.
A moot and academic case is one that ceases to
present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration
thereon would be of no practical use or value
Exceptions:
1. Grave violation of the Constitution;
2. exceptional character of the situation
and the paramount public interest
involve;
3. when
constitutional
issue
raised
requires the formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar
and the public;
4. the case is capable of repetition yet
evading review.
b.) The constitutional question must be raised
by the proper party.
A proper party is one who has sustained
or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury
as a result of the act complained of.
Locus standi is defined as a right of
appearance in a court of justice on a given
question.
The mere invocation by the IBP of its
duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing
more, while undoubtedly true, is not sufficient
to clothe it with standing in this case. This is
too general an interest which is shared by other
groups and the whole citizenry
Having stated the foregoing, it must be
emphasized that this Court has the discretion to
take cognizance of a suit which does not satisfy
the requirement of legal standing when
paramount interest is involved. In not a few
cases, the Court has adopted a liberal attitude
on the locus standi of a petitioner where the
petitioner is able to craft an issue of

transcendental significance to the people. (IBP

vs. Zamora)
Taxpayers Suit:
1. Public funds are disbursed by a political
subdivision or instrumentality;
2. In doing so, a law is law is violated or some
irregularity is committed, and that the
petitioner is directly affected.
c.) The constitutional question must be raised
at the earliest opportunity.
Raised it in a pleading before a
competent court that can resolve the same,
such that if not raised in the pleadings, it
cannot be considered on appeal.
Court may determine, in the exercise of
sound
discretion,
the
time
when
a
constitutional issue may be passed upon.
(Mailbag vs. Benipayo)
d.) The decision of the constitutional question
must be necessary to the determination of the
case itself.
Moreover, the legality of petitioners
reassignment hinges on the constitutionality of
Benipayos ad interim appointment and
assumption
of
office.
Unless
the
constitutionality of Benipayos ad interim
appointment and assumption of office is
resolved,
the
legality
of
petitioners
reassignment from the EID to the Law
Department cannot be determined. Clearly, the
lis mota of this case is the very constitutional
issue raised by petitioner.
3 Important Functions of Court:
1. Checking= when courts declares an act by
the
executive
or
legislative
as
unconstitutional;
2. Legitimizing= when the court sustains the
act of the President or the Congress;
3. Symbolizing= even if it is already moot and
academic, court may still resolve the costs on
their merits.
ARTICLE XVII AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Constitution of Sovereignty
Amendments are piece meal change or addition
that
would
not
drastically
affect
the
fundamental laws.
E.g. Change in the voting requirement.
Revisions are substantial changes or an
overhaul of the fundamental laws.
E.g.
A
change
from
Presidential
to
Parliamentary, since it would result to
combination of legislative and executive.
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of,
this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of threefourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution
may likewise be directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition of
at least twelve per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at
least three per centum of the registered
voters therein. No amendment under this
section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution
nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter.
2

The Congress shall provide for the

implementation of the exercise of this right.
Test adopted to determine whether the
amendment or revision will be right.
Quantitative = on how many provisions
will be changed;
Qualitative = kind of change sought to be
effected.
Two stages in Amendments or Revisions:
1. Proposal;
3 Methods of Proposal:
1. Constitutional Assembly = votes of all its
members in a CONASS, which is a nonlegislative functions;
2. Constitutional Convention = Sec 1, par 2
and Sec 2, Article XVII
2/3 votes of all its members calls for
CONCON;
by a majority vote of all its members and
submission to the electorate by means of
plebiscite;
3. Through peoples initiative (plebiscite) = a
petition of at least 12% of the total registered
voters, represented by at least 3% of all
legislative districts. Only limited to proposing
amendments and not revisions, unlike the first
two.
It is a non self-executing provision, as
provided by par 2, Sec 2, Article XVII, despite
the enactment of RA 6735.
RA 6735 is inadequate to cover the
system of initiative to amend the constitution
because while Sec 3 mentions initiative on the
Constitution
and
Sec
5
restates
the
constitutional
requirements
as
to
the
percentage of registered voters needed for a
proposal, the law does not provide for the
contents of a petition for initiative on the
Constitution; while there are subtitles for
national and local initiatives, there is no subtitle
for the initiative on the Constitution; thus, the
law is incomplete, and this inadequacy cannot
be cured by empowering the COMELEC to
promulgate implementing rules and regulations.
A revision cannot be done by initiative
which, by express provision of Section 2 of
Article XVII of the Constitution, is limited to
amendments. (Santiago vs. Comelec)
2. Ratification made through a plebiscite
called for that purpose. Sec 4, Art XVII
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of,
this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall
be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
days after the approval of such amendment or
revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof
shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety
days after the certification by the Commission
on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
Also Sec 32, Article VI, provides for the
creation of a system of initiative and
referendum, which is RA 6735
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY
The State may not be sued without its
consent. Article XVI Section 3

Even without the above section, still the

doctrine applies, by virtue of Sec 2, Article 2,
which is the Doctrine of Incorporation.
Under this doctrine,, such principles are
deemed incorporated in the law of every civilized
state as a condition and consequence of its
membership in the society of nations.
Sovereign Equality of States = par in
parem, non habet imperium. The royal
prerogative of dishonesty, for it grants privilege
to a state to defeat any legitimate claim against
it by simply invoking its non-suability.
Only when foreign states expressly
waives such, will the suit prosper.
There can be no legal right as against
the authority that makes the law on which the
right depends (Justice Holmes)
Gen Rule: State cannot be sued.
Except: There is consent;
Waiver
Kinds of waiver:
EXPRESS WAIVER
Only the Congress can waive immunity
from suit through enactment of a general or
special law, since it is a derogation of
sovereignty.
a. General Laws:
Act No 3083=money claims arising from
express or implied contracts with the govt
CA No 327 = General Auditing Law as
amended by PD 1445, which requires that all
money claims against the govt must first be
filed with COA before the suit is instituted in
court.
The ground of lack of cause of action for
not having exhausted administrative remedies
will come to play if suit is not filed first to COA
If refused payment by COA, go to SC
with a petition for certiorari.
b. Special Laws
Article 2180, par 6 of the NCC = special
agents
The State is responsible in like manner
when it acts through a special agent; but not
when the damage has been caused by the
official to whom the task done properly pertains;
in which case what is provided in Article 2176
shall be applicable.
Article 2189 of the NCC = LGUs
defective maintenance of public works
Provinces, cities and municipalities shall
be liable for damages for the death of, or
injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the
defective condition of roads, streets, bridges,
public buildings, and other public works under
their control or supervision.
Ownership is immaterial for what is
determinative is who has control or supervision
of such road. City of Dagupan Case
Sec 4 of RA 409 refers to liability arising
from negligence in general, regardless of the
object thereof, whereas, Article 2189 of the NCC
governs liability due to defective streets in
particular, even if such is a general law. City of
Manila vs. Teotico
Sec 24, RA 7160 = LGUs liability for
damage to property.
Liability
for
Damages.
Local
government units and their officials are not
exempt from liability for death or injury to
persons or damage to property.
3

IMPLIED WAIVER
a. when the State commences litigation,
thus opening itself to counterclaim;
b. When it enters to a contract with a
private individuals
Old rule: State is deemed to have waived
immunity, for he descends to the level of a
private individual;
New rule: Distinctions has to be made.
(Restrictive Doctrine of State Immunity)
Government Acts (acta jure imperii) =
only in this act, where immunity from suit can
be availed by the State.
The
transaction
involves
the
improvement of the wharves in the naval
installation as Subic Bay. As this was a
government function, the contract did not divest
the US of its sovereign immunity from suit. US
vs. Ruiz
The ruling was unfair, but because the
issue has become one of international law, state
immunity applies. The remedy of the private
individual is to convince the DFA to take up the
case against the govt.
A driver of a municipality engaged in the
performance of governmental function, is
exempt from liability. (damnum absque injuria)
Municipality of San Fernando La Union vs
Judge Firma.
Private, Commercial and Proprietary
Acts (acta jure gestionis)
The restaurant services offered at the
John Hay Station partake the nature of a
business enterprise undertaken by the US govt
in its proprietary function, for it is open not only
to the member of the US Armed Forces but to
the public, thus undoubtedly, it is operated for
profit as a commercial entity. US vs. Guinto
A celebration of town fiesta is not a govt
function but a proprietary one, thus, the
municipality may be held liable for the injury
suffered by one of the workers who fell while
constructing the same. The mere fact that the
celebration, as claimed was not to secure profit
or gain but merely to provide entertainment to
the town inhabitants is not a conclusive test.
Torio vs. Fontanilla
SUABILITY vs. LIABILITY OF THE STATE
Suability refers to the right of the state
to sue and be sued, while Liability merely gives
the opportunity for the govt to be sued but may
be held not liable, when it proposes positive
defenses to absolve it.

Q. What if the dump truck was carrying a

lumber for the repair of a public market?
A. Public Market is a business enterprise of a
LGU and is engaged in commercial and
proprietary functions.
Q. After trial, judgment was rendered against
the government, may the government funds in
the PNB be garnished or may the property of the
government be levied?
A. The waiver does not extend to the execution
of judgment, for another waiver is required.
Otherwise the government will be paralyzed in
the performance of its functions.
REMEDY: To make necessary representation to
the Congress to enact appropriation measures
to satisfy the judgment.
If still the government refuses to enact
the appropriate measure. MANDAMUS will lie,
for there is already a final judgment, and the
state should be the first the one to respect the
courts ruling. Municipality of Makati vs. CA
Generally the duty to appropriate is
discretionary, however if there is already a final
judgment, it now becomes a ministerial duty.
Rule 67(Expropriation of Eminent Domain)
Government
entered
the
property
without undergoing the expropriation procedure
and proceeded to level out the property of
petitioner, it is deemed an implied waiver
because the State opened itself to litigation
whereby the petitioner may file counterclaims
for the failure of the govt to expropriate the said
property. Thus, where the govt violated its own
rules, the Doctrine of immunity cannot be
invoked to perpetrate injustice. Amigable vs.
Cuenca
DFA intervened certifying that the Holy
See is immune from the local jurisdiction. This
became binding with the Courts rendering Holy
See immune from suit, thereby the case was
dismissed. Holy See vs. Rosario
Suits against government agency:
Incorporated
=
has
a
separate
personality distinct from the government. Look
at the charter, whether it can be sued or not;
E.g. GSIS, SSS
Unincorporated = has no separate
personality. Look for waiver of such agency.
E.g. BIR, DOH, Customs

Municipal corporations exist in a dual

capacity, and their functions are two-fold. In
one, they exercise the right springing from
sovereignty, and while in the performance of the
duties pertaining thereto, their acts are political
and governmental. Their agents and officers in
such capacity though elected and appointed by
them are nevertheless public functionaries
performing a public service.
In the other capacity, they exercise a
proprietary, private or corporate rights arising
from their existence as private person and not
as public agencies.

Suits against public officers:

Gen rule: Doctrine of state immunity
applies when the public officers acts are in the
performance of their duties
Except: When the acts of the public
officer in his official capacity are unlawful and
injurious to the rights of others;
Also acts committed in bad faith;
Lastly, it does not apply where the officer
is being charged in his personal capacity.
Amado J. Lansang vs. CA

In the case of Municipality of San

Fernando vs. Judge Firme, the driver is
exercising a governmental function, which is
that he is on his way to get a load of sand and
gravel for the repair of the San Fernando
municipal streets.

Section 1. The following are citizens of the

Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines
at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution; (February 2, 1987)

ARTICLE IV CITIZENSHIP

[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are

citizens of the Philippines;
The Philippine law on citizenship
adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis.
Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or
citizenship of the parents regardless of the place
of his/her birth, as opposed to the doctrine of
jus soli which determines nationality or
citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and
Exception to Sec 2. Upon election of
Philippine citizenship, he/she is natural born.
Q.
Can a legitimate child born under the
1935 Constitution of a Filipino mother and an
alien father validly elect Philippine citizenship
fourteen (14) years after he has reached the age
of majority?
A. Those born of Filipino mothers and alien
fathers before the effectivity of the 1935
Constitution provides that they should elect
Phil. Citizenship at a reasonable time, which is
within 3 years upon reaching the age of
majority.
However if the child was illegitimate, the
child will follow the citizenship of the mother,
which is Filipino. Re: Application for
Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D.
Ching, Bar Matter No. 914
The 1935 was the governing law, where
it provided that those whose fathers are citizens
of the Philippines, whether they be legitimate or
not are citizens of the Philippines.
Any
conclusion
on
the
Filipino
citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn
from the presumption that having died in 1954
at 84 years old, Lorenzo would have been born
sometime in the year 1870, when the
Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that
San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence
upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any
other evidence, could have well been his place of
residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou
would have benefited from the en masse
Filipinization
that the Philippine Bill had
effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo
Pou), if acquired, would thereby extend to his
son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The
1935 Constitution, during which regime
respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers
citizenship to all persons whose fathers are
Filipino citizens regardless of whether such
children are legitimate or illegitimate. Tecson
vs. Comelec
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance
with law.
Naturalized citizens are those who have
become Filipino citizens through naturalization,
generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known
as the Revised Naturalization Law, which
repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No.
2927), and by RA No. 530. To be naturalized, an
applicant has to prove that he possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualification
provided by law to become a Filipino citizen.
The
decision
granting
Philippine
citizenship becomes executory only after two (2)
years from its promulgation when the court is
satisfied that during the intervening period, the
applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has
dedicated himself to a lawful calling or

profession; (3) has not been convicted of any

offense or violation of Government promulgated
rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the
interest of the nation or contrary to any
Government announced policies.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those
who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
who
elect
Philippine
citizenship
in
accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
2 ways of acquiring citizenship:
(1) by birth, and
(2) by naturalization.
2 kinds of citizen: Bengson III vs. HRET
Natural Born = are those citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect his
Philippine citizenship.
Except, those under Art 1, 3, who needs
to elect Philippine citizenship. Sec 2
Naturalized =
are those who have
become Filipino citizens through naturalization,
generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known
as the Revised Naturalization Law, which
repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No.
2927), and by RA No. 530. (Sec 1, no 4)
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost
or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Filipino citizens who have lost their
citizenship may reacquire the same in the
manner provided by law. CA No. 63 enumerates
the three modes by which Philippine citizenship
may be reacquired by a former citizen:
(1) by naturalization;
A mode for both acquisition and
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As a
mode
of
initially
acquiring
Philippine
citizenship, naturalization is governed by CA
No. 473, as amended. On the other hand,
naturalization as a mode for reacquiring
Philippine citizenship is governed by CA No. 63
(An Act Providing for the Ways in Which
Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or
Reacquired [1936]). Under this law, a former
Filipino citizen who wishes to reacquire
Philippine citizenship must possess certain
qualifications and none of the disqualifications
mentioned in Section 4 of C.A. 473.
(2) by repatriation; and
May be had under various statutes by
those who lost their citizenship due to:
(1) desertion of the armed forces (Section
4, C.A. No. 63);
(2) service in the armed forces of the
allied forces in World War II (Section 1, RA No.
965 [1953]);
(3) service in the Armed Forces of the
United States at any other time (Sec. 1, RA No.
2630 [1960]);
(4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an
alien (Sec. 1, RA No. 8171= must be applied to
Special Committee on Naturalization. [1995]);
and
(5) political and economic necessity
(Ibid).
As distinguished from the lengthy
process of naturalization, repatriation simply
consists of the taking of an oath of allegiance to
5

the Republic of the Philippines and registering

said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place
where the person concerned resides or last
resided.
Repatriation results in the recovery of
the original nationality. This means that a
naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will
be restored to his prior status as a naturalized
Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was
originally a natural-born citizen before he lost
his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to
his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
Antonio Bengson III vs. HRET
(3) by direct act of Congress.
Requires:
Take an oath of allegiance;
Registering in the Office of Civil Registrar
where he resides.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who
marry aliens shall retain their citizenship,
unless by their act or omission, they are
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
It is now applicable not only to Filipino
women, as provided by the 1973 Constitution,
but to citizens, which include Filipino men.
In order that citizenship may be lost by
renunciation, such renunciation must be
express.
In the case of Aznar v. COMELEC, the
Court ruled that the mere fact that he is an
American did not mean that he is no longer a
Filipino, and that an application for an alien
certificate of registration was not tantamount to
renunciation of his Philippine citizenship.
And, in Mercado v. Manzano and
COMELEC, it was held that the fact that
respondent Manzano was registered as an
American citizen in the Bureau of Immigration
and Deportation and was holding an American
passport on April 22, 1997, only a year before
he filed a certificate of candidacy for vice-mayor
of Makati, were just assertions of his American
nationality before the termination of his
American citizenship.
Congressman Ong was born before
January 17, 1973 of Filipino mother and
Chinese father, who later became naturalized
Filipino,
thus
petitioner
by
Derivative
Citizenship followed his father. Co vs. HRET
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is
inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.
Non-self executing provision.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand,
refers to a situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act,
loyalty to two or more states.
While dual
citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the
result of an individuals volition.
Hence, the phrase dual citizenship in
R.A. No. 7160, Section 40(d) (Local Government
Code) must be understood as referring to dual
allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere
dual citizenship do not fall under this
disqualification.
Unlike those with dual
allegiance, who must be subject to strict process
with respect to the termination of their status,
for candidates with dual citizenship, it should
suffice if, upon the filing of their certificate of
candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to
terminate their status as persons with dual

citizenship considering that their condition is

the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws
of different states. Mercado vs. Manzano
Instances when a citizen of the Philippines
may possess dual citizenship:
1)
Those born of Filipino fathers and/or
mothers in foreign countries which follow the
principle of jus soli;
2)
Those born in the Philippines of Filipino
mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their
fathers country such children are citizens of
that country;
3)
Those who marry aliens if by the laws of
the latters country the former are considered
citizens, unless by their act or omission they are
deemed
to
have
renounced
Philippine
citizenship.
Requisites for application of res judicata
doctrine in cases of citizenship:
1)
a persons citizenship be raised as a
material issue in a controversy where said
person is a party;
2)
the Solicitor General or his authorized
representative took active part in the resolution
thereof, and
3)
the finding on citizenship is affirmed by
this Court. Burca vs. Republic
RA 9225 = Citizenship
Reacquisition Act of 2003

Retention

and

2 situations:
Retention and Reacquisition = there must be
taking an oath of allegiance on either.
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The
unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate
or adopted, below eighteen (18) years of age, of
those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship
upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed
citizenship of the Philippines.
STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT
Executive = power to implement the law (power
of the sword) Sec 1, Article VI
Legislative = power to enact, alter, amend or
repeal the law. (Power of the purse) Sec 1,
Article VII
Judicial = power to interpret the law. (Power of
judicial review) Sec 1, Article VIII
Doctrine of Separation of Powers = purpose is
to secure action, forestall over-action, to prevent
despotism and to obtain efficiency.
Principle of Checks and Balances = objective
is to avoid the concentration of powers into one
branch only. It is a system of counteraction by
means of which one department is allowed to
resist enforcement upon its prerogatives or to
rectify the mistakes or excesses committed by
any of its co-equal departments.
Potestas delegate non delegari potesta= What
has been delegated cannot be delegated:
Except: PETAL
Delegation to people through initiative
and referendum; Article VI, Sec 32,
Enactment of the implementing law of RA
6735
Delegation to the president of emergency
powers; Sec 23, par 2 Art. VI
Requisites:
1.
In times of war or other national
emergency;
6

2.
For a limited period;
3.
Subject to such restrictions as Congress
may prescribe;
4.
To exercise powers necessary and proper
to carry out a declared national policy.
Last paragraph provides that there is no
need for another enactment of the law to
withdraw such powers for it hall cease upon the
next adjournment of Congress.
Delegation of tariff powers to the
president; Sec 28, par 2 Art. VI
Authorized by law enacted by Congress.
Delegation to administrative bodies;
Delegation to LGU.
Test for Valid Permissible Delegation:
Completeness Test = law must be
complete on all its essential terms and
conditions when enacted, so that there shall be
nothing left to do when it reaches the delegate
but just to enforce it;
Sufficient Standard Test = limits of the
law
are
sufficiently
determinable
and
determined to which the delegate must conform
in the performance of his functions.
The legislative standard need not be
expressed, for it can be found in other repealed
statutes or it may be simply gathered or
implied. Chiongbian vs. Orbos
ARTICLE VI LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The legislative power shall be
vested in the Congress of the Philippines
which shall consist of a Senate and a House
of Representatives, except to the extent
reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.
To be read in correlation with Sec 32,
where legislative must enact a law for peoples
initiative and referendum, which is RA 6735.
Q: this reservation of the people to directly
enact laws, is this self executing?
A: NO. Sec. 32 of Article VI provides that the
congress shall as early as possible, provide for a
system of initiative and referendum thus the
congress is mandated to enact that so called
initiative and referendum law.
Which the
congress has complied with the mandate by
enacting R.A. 6735 the Initiative and
Referendum Law.
Non-legislative function:
When the Congress acts as Constituent
Assembly;
Investigative power in aid of legislation;
Sec 21 Article VI
Impeachment Court;
National Board of Canvassers in
Presidential
and
Vice-presidential
elections;
Amnesty proclamations;
Declaration of State of War; Sec 23(1)
Article VI
Determination of the Incapacity of the
President to discharge his functions; Sec
11, last par Article VII
Emergency power delegated through
enactment of law; Sec 23(2) Article VI
Electoral tribunal;
Treaty concurrence; Sec 19, par 2 Article
VII
INITIATIVE Power of the people TO PROPOSE
or AMEND a law

REFERENDUM Power of the people TO

DECIDE whether or not an act or measure
passed by a legislative body should become a
law.
Composition of Congress:
1. 24 Senators (Sec 2, Article VI)
2. Number of members of House of
Representatives, have undergone changes, by
reason of Article VI Sec 5(4). (Power of
reapportionment of legislative districts)
Within three years following the
return of every census, the Congress shall
make a reapportionment of legislative
districts based on the standards provided in
this section.
Bicameral Conference Committee Sec 27,
Article VI
The
mechanism
for
compromising
differences between the Senate and the House.
Q. Discuss the nature of its function and its
jurisdiction?
A conference committee may deal
generally with the subject matter or it may be
limited to resolving the precise differences
between the two houses.
Even where the
conference committee is not by rule limited in
its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely limits
the freedom with which new subject matter can
be inserted into the conference bill.
But
occasionally a conference committee produces
unexpected results, results beyond its mandate.
These excursions occur even where the rules
impose
strict
limitations
on
conference
committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of
the
authoritarian
power
of
conference
committee. Philippine Judges Association vs.
Prado
Kinds of Congressman:
District representatives = 80%
Party-list representative = 20% (Article
VI Sec 5, par. 2.
The
party-list
representatives
shall
constitute twenty per centum of the total
number of representatives including those
under the party list
The party-list system is a social justice
tool designed not only to give more law to the
great masses of our people who have less in life,
but also to enable them to become veritable
lawmakers
themselves,
empowered
to
participate directly in the enactment of laws
designed to benefit them.
It intends to make the marginalized and
the underrepresented not merely passive
recipients of the States benevolence, but active
participants in the mainstream of representative
democracy.
The party-list system is not open to all,
for there is qualifications to be complied with,
for it would create a mirage and not hope to the
marginalized and unrepresented. Ang Bagong
Bayani OFW Labor Party vs. Comelec
Inviolable parameters of party-list election:
Constitution and Republic Act No. 7941
Copied from the German Model Party list
System.
First, the twenty percent allocation the combined number of all party-list
congressmen shall not exceed twenty percent of
7

the total membership of the House of

Representatives, including those elected under
the party list.
Formula:
# of DR x 20 = # of PLR
80
E.g

320 x 20 = 80 party-list representative

80
If answer fractional representation, like
80.25, it will be 80 party-list representative. For
if it will be rounded-off, it will be 81, thus
exceeding the 20% allocation. (GUIGONA vs.
GONZALES)
Second, the two percent threshold only those garnering a minimum of two percent
of the total valid votes cast for the party-list
system are "qualified" to have a seat in the
House of Representatives.
Formula:
Total # of party list votes x .02 = votes
needed for a qualifying party list seat
E.g 5M voted for party-list.
5,000,000 x .02 = 100,000 votes
Third, the three seat limit - each
qualified party, regardless of the number of
votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a
maximum of three seats; that is, one
"qualifying" and two additional seats.
Purpose is to avoid monopoly and to
avoid a situation where on party-list may cover
the whole 20% allocation.
Formula:
Votes needed for qualifying seat x 3 = 3
party list seat.
E.g. 200,000 votes is for 1 qualifying seat
Multiplied by 3, the party list needs at
least 600,000 or have 6% threshold votes to
have 2 additional seats.
Fourth, proportional representation the additional seats which a qualified party is
entitled to shall be computed "in proportion to
their total number of votes."
E.g. 200,000 votes is the 2% threshold limit.
An additional 200,000 will give 1
additional seat and so thus another 200,000
will give another last additional seat.
Q. 123 party-lists joined the 1998 elections,
where there were 208 district Congressmen,
thereby 52 seats were allocated for party-list
representatives. Only 12 qualified for the 2%
threshold limit, and 1 obtained an additional
seat. The Comelec distributed the remaining 38
seats to the non-qualifying party-list, for
reasons that social justice will be served if more
party-list were elected. Is it proper?
A. No, the act of Comelec is already a violation
of the Doctrine of Separation of powers, for the
Legislature had already provided RA 7941,
which is the law that provided the four
inviolable parameters.
With regard to the remaining seats,
nothing can be done. It should not be allocated
to anyone because Sec 5(2) Article VI is not
mandatory, for it merely provides a ceiling for
the party-list in Congress.
Veterans
Federation Party vs. Comelec

Q. What is to be done on votes tallied in favor of

a party-list who did not qualify, should it be
deducted?
A. The doctrines laid down in Labo and Grego
is to be reviewed.
In the Labo case, the votes cast for an
ineligible candidate cannot be considered as
stray votes; otherwise the voters will be
disenfranchised. However if the voters voted in
favor of the candidate fully knowing that he is
disqualified, such votes are stray.
Despite such, party list does not involve
a single elective post as held in Labo and Grego.
RA 7941, Sec 10, provides that a vote
cast for a party, sectoral organization, or
coalition not entitled to be voted for shall not be
counted.
Parliamentary Immunities: Article VI, Sec 11
Privileged from arrest = A Senator or
Member of the House of Representatives shall,
in all offenses punishable by not more than six
years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest
while the Congress is in session.
Session means from the
adjournment of session.

opening

to

the

Two kinds:
Regular = Sec 15, Article VI
Section 15. The Congress shall convene
once every year on the fourth Monday of
July for its regular session, unless a different
date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be
in session for such number of days as it may
determine until thirty days before the
opening of its next regular session, exclusive
of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
Q. What if after 15 days from the fourth Monday
of July, the Congress adjourned. Is it valid?
A. Yes. Article VI, Sec 15 provides that the
determination of the number of days is
determined by Congress, for as long as such is
30 days before opening if regular session.
(Compulsory Adjournment Session)
Special =Article VI, Sec 15 last sentence;
The President may call a special session at
any time.
Instances where Congress may meet in
special session without call by president:
Declaration of State of War; Sec 23(1)
Article VI
Determination of the Incapacity of the
President to discharge his functions; Sec
11, last par Article VII
Revocation of the proclamation of
martial law or suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus; Sec 18
Article VII
In case of vacancy of both Pres and VP
positions, Congress enact a law calling
for a special election; Sec 10 Article VII
Impeachment Cases;
In the matter of canvassing the elections
of Pres and VP;
Q. May Congressman Jalosjos invoke the
privilege from arrest?
A. No. Jalosjos has not given any reason why he
should be exempted from the operation of the
immunity. The Congress cannot compel absent
person members to attend sessions if the reason
for their absence is a legitimate one.
8

The performance of legitimate and even

essential duties by public officers has never
been an excuse to free a person validly in
prison.
The importance of a function depends on
the need for its exercise. The duty of a mother to
nurse her infant is most compelling under the
law of nature. A doctor with unique skills has
the duty to save the lives of those with a
particular affliction. An elective governor has to
serve provincial constituents. A police officer
must maintain peace and order. Never has the
call of a particular duty lifted a prisoner into a
different classification from those others who
are validly restrained by law.
Q. Is he entitled to post bail?
A. The fact that he is already convicted in the
RTC is an indication that evidence of his guilt is
strong. Hence he is not entitled to bail.
Doctrine of Condonation or Forgiveness:
The court should never remove an
elective public officer for acts done prior to his
present term of office. When the people have
elected a man to office, it must be assumed that
they did this with the knowledge of his life and
character, and that they disregarded or forgave
his fault or misconduct, if he had been guilty of
any. It is not for the Court, by reason of such
fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the
will of the people. (Aguinaldo vs. Santos)
Applies only in administrative cases not
to criminal cases.
Disenfranchising the electorate.
Election is the expression of the
sovereign power of the people. In the exercise of
suffrage, a free people expect to achieve the
continuity of government and the perpetuation
of its benefits.
However, in spite of its importance, the
privileges and rights arising from having been
elected may be enlarged or restricted by law
When the voters of his district elected
the accused-appellant to Congress, they did so
with full awareness of the limitations on his
freedom of action. They did so with the
knowledge that he could achieve only such
legislative results which he could accomplish
within the confines of prison. To give a more
drastic illustration, if voters elect a person with
full knowledge that he is suffering from a
terminal illness, they do so knowing that at any
time, he may no longer serve his full term in
office.
Freedom of speech and debate = No
Member shall be questioned nor be held liable
in any other place for any speech or debate in
the Congress or in any committee thereof.
Q. Senator X delivered a speech, where he
maligned Mr. Y. Will an action for oral
defamation or slander filed against Senator X
prosper?
A. No. Section 15, Article VI provides for any
speech or debate in Congress, the Senators or
Members of the House of Representatives shall
not be questioned in any other place.
Nevertheless they can be questioned in
Congress itself.
Q. What if Senator X was expelled from Senate
because he delivered a speech that maligned the
President? Is it a valid expulsion?

A. Yes. Privilege of speech and debate

guarantees the legislator complete freedom of
expression without fear of being made
responsible in any other forum outside the
Congressional Hall. But it does not protect him
from responsibility before the legislative body
itself when his words and conduct are
considered by the latter disorderly or
unbecoming a member thereof. Osmena vs.
Pendatun.
Q. Is the right to post bail a matter of right or
matter of discretion?
A. Under Article III Section 13
All persons, except those charged
with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The
right to bail shall not be impaired even when
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.
Matter of right = before conviction and
when the offense charged is with a penalty less
than reclusion perpetua;
Matter of discretion = offender is
charged with a crime the penalty of which is
reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is
strong.
Q. What if the charge is homicide and the
evidence of guilt is strong?
A. The accused is entitled to post bail even if the
evidence is strong, for the penalty for homicide
is reclusion temporal.
Rules of Court:
On MTC = matter of right before or after
conviction;
On RTC = only matter of right before conviction
unless such is punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment
Rule 114 Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. All
persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of
right, with sufficient sureties, or released on recognizance as
prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction
by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial court
of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment.
Rule 114 Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. Upon
conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is
imprisonment exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be
denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by
the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following
or other similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;
That he committed the offense while under probation,
parole, or conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the
probability of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another
crime during the pendency of the appeal.

Power of the Congress

Principal function and prerogative of the
Congress to enact, ordain, alter, amend or
abrogate
existing
laws.
LAW
MAKING
PROCESS
9

GEN. RULE:
The Bill may be introduced either from
Senate or the House of Representatives.

After three readings it will be sent to the

other house wherein it will undergo the same
cumbersome process.

Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills

authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively
in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.

Q. What constitute a public calamity?

A. Depends on the discretion of the President. It
is a political question and not subject to judicial
review.

EXCEPTIONS: (APRIL) bills which shall

originate exclusively in the House of
Representative:
1. Appropriation Bill
2. Private Bills
3. Revenue Bills
4. Increasing Public Debts
5. Local Application

Bicameral Conference Committee:

Cannot be found in the constitution but
it can be inferred from Section 16 (3) Art. VI
power of each house to determine/promulgate
its Rules of Proceedings.

It is the Bill which shall originate

exclusively with the House of Representative
and not the Law, BUT Senate may concur with
amendments.
The SC ruled that there was no violation
of this section, provided that the bill originates
from the HR and not the law itself. Senate can
propose its own version even with respect to
bills which are required by the Constitution to
originate in the House. (Tolentino vs.
Secretary of Finance)
Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall
embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in
the title thereof.

One-subject One title Rule

Objectives:
1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling
2. To avoid surprises or fraud
3. To fairly appraise the people of the existence
of the bill.
It is the subject which is required to be
expressed in the title and NOT its EFFECT
SC ruled, with respect to Sec.26 par. 1, that the
title of the bill need not be an index of the
contents thereof. There is a substantial
compliance as long as the various provisions are
germane to the subject matter which must be
the one express in the title. The Supreme Court
has adopted a liberal interpretation.
Liberal Interpretation Rule:
Constitution is sufficiently complied with
where the title is comprehensive enough to
embrace the general objective it seeks to
achieve, and if all the parts of the statute are
related and germane to the matter embodied in
the title. (De Guzman vs. COMELEC)
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law
unless it has passed three readings on separate days,
and printed copies thereof in its final form have been
distributed to its Members three days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the necessity of
its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no
amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote
thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the
yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

3 Readings on Separate Days Rule:

GR: 3 separate readings by either house and
printed final form has been distributed 3 days
before its passage to the members
Except: The President certifies to the necessity
of its immediate enactment to meet a public
calamity or emergency
Therefore the bill will undergo a total of
6 readings. 3 from HR and another 3 from
Senate

Not only does it provide a mechanism for

compromising differences between the Senate
and the HR, for legislative custom limits the
freedom with which the new subject matter can
be inserted into the conference bill. But
occasionally a conference committee produces
unexpected results which are beyond its
mandate. (Philippine Judges vs. Prado)
NATURE OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE BCC
A mechanism for reconciling differences
between the Senate and the House. Members
shall come from both houses.
From the Bicameral the consolidated
version will sent back to both houses of
congress, there it will be subjected to votation,
thereafter; it shall be sent to the President for
his signature.
When the nays overcome yeas, there
would be another Bicameral Conference until
such time they all have agreed.
ENROLLED BILL DOCTRINE:
Once it becomes an enrolled bill, it
becomes CONCLUSIVE upon the courts as to its
due enactment and execution, thus they can no
longer inquire into the process of its enactment
for the reason of the Doctrine of Separation of
Powers.
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ENROLLED BILL
AND THE JOURNAL:
GENERAL RULE: Enrolled Bill Prevails
EXCEPTION:
With respect as to the matters which are
required by the constitution to be entered into
journal, the journal is regarded as conclusive.
1. the yeas and nays in the final reading
2. yeas and nays in any questions at the request
of 1/5th of the members present
3. the yeas and nays upon re-passing a bill that
was already vetoed by the President
4. the Presidents objection to a bill he had
vetoed.
OPTION OF THE PRESIDENT WHEN A BILL IS
SUBMITTED FOR HIS SIGNATURE:
1. He may SIGN it into law
2. VETO the bill
3. INACTION 30 days after receipt of the bill, if
he does not act, it automatically becomes a law.
POCKET VETO
There is none in the Philippines but this
is recognized in the U.S. where the inaction of
the bill does not make it into bill.
Instances where a Bill may become a law even
without the signature of the President:\
1. Inaction

10

2. the Bill was presented to the President,

vetoed it and the congress was able to override
the veto by 2/3 vote.
Instances where an ordinance becomes valid
without the signature of the local Chief
Executives:
1. When the Sanggunian sent the ordinance to
the local chief executive and the latter failed to
act.
Governor: failed to act within 15 days
Mayor: failed to act within 10 days
2. It is vetoed by the local chief executive but
when sent back to sanggunian, it was override.
VETO POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
Section 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall,
before it becomes a law, be presented to the President.
If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he
shall veto it and return the same with his objections to
the House where it originated, which shall enter the
objections at large in its Journal and proceed to
reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds
of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the
bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the
other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that
House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes
of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and
the names of the Members voting for or against shall be
entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate
his veto of any bill to the House where it originated
within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof,
otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

General Veto of the President ALL or

NOTHING
The President vetoes the bill in its
ENTIRETY and the bill does not become a law.
Exception inappropriate provisions are
treated as an item veto.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any
particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or
tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items
to which he does not object.

ITEM OR LINE VETO

It is an exception to the general rule that

the President cannot veto a bill without vetoing
the entire bill.
It applies only to 3 kinds of Bill (ART)
1. Appropriation Bills
2. Revenue Bills
3. Tariff Bills
Doctrine of Inappropriate Provisions
Sec 25(2) Article VI
No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the
general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically
to some particular appropriation therein. Any such
provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation
to the appropriation to which it relates.

It must relate specifically to some

particular appropriation therein, otherwise it
becomes an inappropriate provisions.
POWER OF IMPOUNDMENT
It is the refusal of the President to use
the fund appropriated by Congress. In effect it
becomes another kind of veto power of the
President not found in the Constitution.
Instances where the President participate in the
law making-process:
1. When the President exercises his Veto power
(Sec. 27, Art. VI)
2. When the president calls for Special Session
(Sec. 15, Art. VI)

3. When the President certifies the urgency of

the bill to meet Public Calamity or Emergency
(Sec. 26, par 2 Art. VI
NOTE:
As a general rule: before a bill becomes a
law, it should undergo 3 readings
EXCEPTION:
When the President
certifies the urgency of the bill
4. The President signs a bill that becomes a law
(Sec. 27, Art. VI)
5. The President prepares the budget which is
the basis of the General appropriation. (Sec.22
Art. VII)
BODIES ATTACHED TO CONGRESS
1. Commission on Appointments
2. Electoral Tribunal
a. House of Rep. Electoral Tribunal.
b. Senate Electoral Tribunal
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
Section
17.
The
Senate
and
the
House
of
Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal
which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to
the election, returns, and qualifications of their
respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be
Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the
Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of
the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case
may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from the political parties and the parties
or organizations registered under the party-list system
represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman.

MEMBERS:
Each Electoral Tribunal shall be
composed of 9 members: HRET/ SET
JUDICIAL COMPONENT:

3 Justices of the Supreme Court, the

CHAIRMAN is the most senior among the three
LEGISLATIVE COMPONENT:

6 Congressmen or senators as the case

may be, chosen on the basis of proportional
representation from political parties having
membership in the House or Senate.
REMEMBER:
Electoral Tribunal may meet when
Congress is NOT in session, they shall meet in
accordance with their rules regardless of
whether the Congress is in session, BUT COA
CANNOT meet when Congress is not in session
as mandated by Sec. 19, thats why there are
ad interim appointment.
From the Decision of the Electoral
Tribunal there can be NO APPEAL. The Electoral
Tribunal is the SOLE JUDGE of all contests
relating to election, returns and qualifications of
their respective members hence No appeal from
their decision.
REMEDY:
CERTIORARI under RULE 65 based on
grave abuse of discretion.
To be filed to the SUPREME COURT, the
composition itself of the E.T. is composed of 3
Justices of the Supreme Court. It is but proper
that the Supreme Court will review their acts
and not the Court of Appeals.
No appeal is allowed in the decisions of HRET
and SET, for being the sole judge and since it is
merely a statutory right.
Remedy is to file a petition under Rule
65, for grave abuse of discretion.
Sec. 6 of RA 6646, provides that if for any
reason the candidate sought to be disqualified
before the election and who later on won, the
11

COMELEC and not the HRET has a continuous

jurisdiction over such disqualification since she
is not yet elected. (Imelda vs. Comelec)
Once a winning candidate has been proclaimed,
taken his oath and assumed office as a member
of the HR, the COMELECs jurisdiction over
election contest relating to his election, returns
and qualification ends and the HRETs
jurisdiction has begun. (Farinas vs. COMELEC)
Members of the HRET/SET shall have security
of tenure to insure their impartiality and
independence. (Bondoc vs. Pineda)
COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS
Section 18. There shall be a Commission on
Appointments consisting of the President of the Senate,
as ex officio Chairman, twelve Senators, and twelve
Members of the House of Representatives, elected by
each House on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and parties or organizations
registered under the party-list system represented
therein. The chairman of the Commission shall not
vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act
on all appointments submitted to it within thirty
session days of the Congress from their submission. The
Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the
Members.

25 MEMBERS:
1 Senate Pres. Ex-officio Chairman
12 Senators
12 Congressmen
Congressmen and Senators are chosen
on the basis on proportional representation
from the political parties having membership in
the House or Senate.
MAIN FUNCTION:
To act on Presidential appointment.
Created to limit the power of the
President, for they confirm the nomination of
the President.
Only meet when Congress is in session,
thereby ad-interim appointments are made.
Formula for both COA and HRET/SET:
No of members/party x No of seats available
Total no of Senators/Congressmen
E.g. 10 x 12 = 5
24
E.g.
Political party
PPC
LAMP
LAKAS
LDP
Total

No. of Members
10
8
4
2
24

Seats allocated
5
4
2
1
12

12 seats are not mandatory, so long as there is

a quorum
Fractional representation is not allowed.
Section 19. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission
on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days
after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall
have been organized with the election of the President
and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments
shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the
call of its Chairman or a majority of all its Members, to
discharge such powers and functions as are herein
conferred upon it.
Section 20. The records and books of accounts of the
Congress shall be preserved and be open to the public in
accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by
the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually
an itemized list of amounts paid to and expenses
incurred for each Member.

Section 21. 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.

Congress has the Power to Conduct

inquires in aid of Legislation
Non legislative power for investigation
Legislative Contempt
Where a person did not cooperate with the said
inquiry when summoned by the House of
Representatives or by the Senate, he may be
declared in contempt and the President cannot
pardon it, may be sent to jail for such time that
he wants to cooperate. (Arnault vs. Nazareno)
No pardon for it will violate the Doctrine
of Separation of Powers.
Gen. Rule: Power of Contempt is judicial in
character (inherent in the court)
Except: Congress or any of its committee when
conducting inquires in aid of legislation
Not a political question thus can be
subject to judicial review.
Not absolute:
In aid of legislation;
In accordance with its duly published rules
of procedure;
Rights of the persons appearing or affected
by such inquiries shall be respected.
The Oversight Functions of Congress
or legislative veto over subordinate legislations
or the rules and regulations promulgated by
administrative agencies of the government is an
indispensable power of the Congress for the
discharge of such broad power to legislate.
Embraces all activities undertaken by
the Congress to enhance its understanding of
and influence over the implementation of
legislation it has enacted. It has been held that
such power of oversight is intrinsic in the grant
of legislative power itself and integral to the
checks and balances inherent in a democratic
system of government.
Oversight
concerns
post-enactment
measures undertaken by Congress:
To
monitor
bureaucratic
compliance with program objectives;
To determine whether agencies
are properly administered;
To eliminate executive waste and
dishonesty;
To prevent executive usurpation
of legislative authority;
To assess executive conformity
with the congressional perception of public
interest.
The oversight power has also been used
to insure the accountability of regulatory
commissions. (Macalintal vs. Comelec)
Categories
of
Congressional
Oversight
Functions:
a. strict scrutiny
It implies a lesser intensity and
continuity of relations to administrative
operations. Its primary purpose is to determine
economy and efficiency of the operation of
government activities. It is based primarily on
the power of appropriation of Congress.
In the exercise of this legislative
scrutiny, Congress may:

12

1. May request information and report

from the other branches of the
government;
2. It can give recommendations or pass
resolutions for the consideration of the
agency involved;
3. Exercise scrutiny through its power of
confirmation
by
sharing
in
the
appointing power of the President.
b. Investigation
This power involves more intense digging
of facts. This is recognized by the 1987
Constitution under Section 21, Article VI, but
nevertheless even without such, congressional
investigation has been held to be an essential
and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative
function.
It has limitations:
It must be in aid of legislative
functions;
It
must
be
conducted
in
accordance with duly published rules of
procedure;
The persons appearing therein
are afforded the constitutional rights.
c. supervision
Connotes a continuing and informed
awareness on the part of the congressional
committee regarding executive operations in a
given administrative area. Unlike the first two
categories, which involves past actions, in here
Congress scrutinize the exercise of delegated
law-making authority and permits Congress to
retain part of this delegated authority.
Congress exercises its supervision over the
executive agencies through its veto power.
Section 13 Art. VI
No Senator or Member of the House Rep. may hold any
other office or employment in the Govt. or any
subdivision,
agency
or
instrumentality
thereof,
including GOCC or their subsidiaries during their term
without forfeiting his seat.

INCOMPATIBLE OFFICE

Neither shall he be appointed to any office which he

may have been created or the emoluments thereof
increased during the term for which he was elected

FORBIDDEN OFFICE

Incompatible Office
One which may not be
held by a member
during his TERM of
office
WITHOUT
FORFEITING
HIS
SEAT
A member may validly
appointed
but
he
forfeits his seats
Q: is it necessary for
him to resign before
he accepts that other
office?
A: NO need to resign,
it is automatic
More of an inhibition

Forbidden Office
One
which
is
FORBIDDEN by law
even if he is willing to
forfeit his seat.
He may not be validly
appointed

More of a prohibition

Q: Congressman X was appointed as Sec. of

DENR. Can he validly accept the appointment?
A: Yes No need to resign BUT he cannot go back
in his former position.
Q: Congress created a new office, Urban Poor
Commission.
It
appropriated
20
M.
Congressman X resigned and applied for that
position. Can he be validly appointed?

A: NO. It was created during the term in which

he was elected. Even if he is willing to resign, he
cannot still be appointed because it is forbidden
office.
ARTICLE VII EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in the
President of the Philippines.

Correlate
Execution

with

Doctrine

of

Faithful

Section 17. The President shall have control of

all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He
shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

Executive Power includes the power to execute,

administer the law. Any power that is neither
legislative nor judicial.
Case: Marcos vs. Manlapus
Return of Marcos from exile.
The Supreme Court held that the President,
aside from the powers which he may exercise
granted to him by the Constitution, he also has
the unstated RESIDUAL POWERS, powers
which are not found in the constitution but he
may validly exercise.
Section 2. No person may be elected President unless he
is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a registered
voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age
on the day of the election, and a resident of the
Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding
such election.

Qualifications:
1. Natural-born Citizen of the Philippines
2. Registered Voter
3. Able to read and write
4. At least 40 years of age on the day of the
election
5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10
years immediately preceding the election
Section 3. There shall be a Vice-President who shall
have the same qualifications and term of office and be
elected with, and in the same manner, as the President.
He may be removed from office in the same manner as
the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of
the
Cabinet.
Such
appointment
requires
no
confirmation.

Example of appointment by
President where COA has no confirmation.

the

Section 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be

elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six
years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of
June next following the day of the election and shall
end at noon of the same date, six years thereafter. The
President shall not be eligible for any re-election. No
person who has succeeded as President and has served
as such for more than four years shall be qualified for
election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two
successive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an
interruption in the continuity of the service for the full
term for which he was elected.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election
for President and Vice-President shall be held on the
second Monday of May.
The returns of every election for President and VicePresident, duly certified by the board of canvassers of
each province or city, shall be transmitted to the
Congress, directed to the President of the Senate. Upon
receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of
the Senate shall, not later than thirty days after the day
of the election, open all the certificates in the presence
of the Senate and the House of Representatives in joint
public session, and the Congress, upon determination of
the authenticity and due execution thereof in the
manner provided by law, canvass the votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be
proclaimed elected, but in case two or more shall have
an equal and highest number of votes, one of them shall
forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the

13

Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting

separately.
The Congress shall promulgate its rules for the
canvassing of the certificates.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
and qualifications of the President or Vice-President,
and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.

Terms: 6 years (shall begin at noon of 30th day

of June next following the day of the election
and shall end at noon of the same date 6 years
thereafter)
Limitations: President shall not be eligible for
any re-election.
Case of Estrada
Not eligible for reelection, for he has
served as President, unlike PGMA, where she
succeeded to the Presidency, thereby not elected
as President, thus can run for presidency.
Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their
office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting
President shall take the following oath or affirmation:
I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully
and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or
Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws,
do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the
service of the Nation. So help me God. [In case of
affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].

Valid Causes for Permanent Vacancy in the

Presidency
Section 8. In case of death, permanent disability,
removal from office, or resignation of the President, the
Vice-President shall become the President to serve the
unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability,
removal from office, or resignation of both the President
and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in
case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, shall then act as President until the
President or Vice-President shall have been elected and
qualified.
The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve as
President in case of death, permanent disability, or
resignation of the Acting President. He shall serve until
the President or the Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified, and be subject to the same
restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the
Acting President.

1.
2.
3.
4.

Death
Permanent Disability
Removal from office by way of impeachment
Resignation

Estrada vs. Desierto

The Supreme Court ruled that Erap
resigned by applying the Totality Test
a. intent to resign
b. coupled by an action of relinquishment , not
covered by any requirement as to form of
resignation, may be oral or written, express or
implied. Totality of prior, contemporaneous and
posterior facts and circumstantial evidence
bearing a material relevance to the issue.
Section 9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the Office of
the Vice-President during the term for which he was
elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President
from among the Members of the Senate and the House
of Representatives who shall assume office upon
confirmation by a majority vote of all the Members of
both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.

In case of vacancy in the Vice-Pres, The

President may nominate among the members of
BOTH houses voting separately.
Section 13. The President, Vice-President, the Members
of the Cabinet, and their deputies or assistants shall
not, unless otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold
any other office or employment during their tenure.
They shall not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly,
practice any other profession, participate in any
business, or be financially interested in any contract

with, or in any franchise, or special privilege granted by

the Government or any subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their
office.

Nepotic Appointments
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the fourth civil degree of the President shall not,
during his tenure, be appointed as Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the
Ombudsman, or as Secretaries, Undersecretaries,
chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries.

Section 14. Appointments extended by an

Acting President shall remain effective, unless
revoked by the elected President, within ninety
days from his assumption or reassumption of
office.
Section 15. Two months immediately before the
next presidential elections and up to the end of
his term, a President or Acting President shall
not make appointments, except temporary
appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice
public service or endanger public safety.
SPECIFIC POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT:
1. Section 16, Art 7 Appointing Power of the
President carries with it the power of removal
(implied from his appointing power)
2. Section 17, Art 7 Power of Control of all
executive departments, bureaus and offices.
With respect to LGU, merely a General
Supervision (Section 4, Art. X)
3. Section 18, Art 7 _ Military Power
4. Section 19 Pardoning power
5. Section 20 Borrowing Power
6. Section 21 Treaty-making power
Section 16. The President shall nominate and,
with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the
executive departments, ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval
captain, and other officers whose appointments
are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall
also appoint all other officers of the Government
whose appointments are not otherwise provided
for by law, and those whom he may be
authorized by law to appoint. The Congress
may, by law, vest the appointment of other
officers lower in rank in the President alone, in
the courts, or in the heads of departments,
agencies, commissions, or boards.
The President shall have the power to make
appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such
appointments shall be effective only until
disapproved
by
the
Commission
on
Appointments or until the next adjournment of
the Congress.
Appointing Power
Not all appointments made by the
President shall be made a subject of
confirmation by the COA
There were only several groups which
require confirmation by the COA:
o
Heads of the Departments or Cabinet
secretaries

14

EXCEPT: Vice-Pres. He/she does not need to be

confirmed by the Comm. Of Appointments when
appointed as a cabinet secretary (Sec. 3 Art VII)
o
Ambassadors and other Public ministers
and consuls
o
AFP officers from the rank of Colonel or
Naval Captain
o
Other officers whose appointments are
vested in him in the Constitution
REMEMBER
The list is EXCLUSIVE, thus Congress
cannot enact a law altering the officers which
require confirmation of the COA under Sec. 16
Art 7 by way of reduction or addition.
AD-INTERIM APPOINTMENTS
An appointment made by the President
when Congress is not in session whether the
appointment is voluntary or compulsory.
NATURE:
The appointment is permanent and
takes effect immediately. The one appointed
thereto can immediately assume office. The
President actually appoints and does not merely
nominate.
REGULAR APPOINTMENT
Appointments made when Congress is in
session.
NATURE:
Appointment does not take effect
immediately. It takes effect only after his
appointment has been confirmed by the Comm.
Of Appointment, he cannot immediately assume
office. The President merely nominates the
appointee. Unlike an ad-interim appointment, if
later on his appointment is not confirmed, he
still maintain his former position, meantime, if
his appointment was disapproved or by-passed,
he does not lose his former office.
REAL
DISTINCTION
EFFECTIVITY

LIES

IN

THE

IN AD-INTERIM APPOINMENT AUTOMATIC,

the appointee can immediately assume office.
There is a risk involved, runs the risk of
losing both offices.
IN
REGULAR
APPOINTMENT

cannot
immediately assume office, does not take effect
immediately. Wait until affirmed by the Comm.
Of Appointment.
LIMITATIONS ON THE APPOINMENT POWER
OF THE PRESIDENT:
1. Sec. 13 (2nd par)
2. Sec. 14
3. Sec 15 .exception temporary appointments
to executive positions when continued vacancies
shall prejudice public service or public safety.
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make appointments,
except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety.

Directed against 2 types of appointments:

1. Appointments made for the purpose of buying
votes or influencing the result of the election.

These refers to those appointments

made within the 2 months preceding a
presidential election and are similar to those
which are declared election offenses in the
omnibus election code.
2. Appointments made for the purpose of
partisan considerations
Consist of the so-called midnight
appointments
2 months --- election --- end of term(noon of
June 30)
The underlined are the periods where no
appointment is to be made except temporary
appointments.
In re: Valenzuela vs. Vallarta
In this case RTC judges were appointed
on March 30, 1998, the election was May 11,
1998, the Supreme Court held that in falls
within the prohibited period, considered as Midnight appointment by way appointing them for
buying votes or influencing the result of the
election
De Rama vs. C.A.
In this case she was a municipal mayor,
before she vacated her position; she filled up all
the positions. When her successor sits, no more
vacancy. The new mayor nullified all the
nullified all the appointments an said that it
was a midnight appointment.
The Supreme Court held that Section 15
of Art. VII applies ONLY to the Presidential or
acting Presidential appointment, there is no law
prohibiting
local
elective
officials
from
appointing during his last day of terms
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or the
Alter Ego Doctrine
Section 17. The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall
ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.

The acts or decision of members of the

executive departments, bureaus and other office
are deemed to be the acts/ decisions of the
President himself if it involves the regular
conduct of the business unless disapprove by
him.
(Correlate with the local governments and their
officials sec. 4 of ART X and Sec. 2 of Art. X )
GENERAL SUPERVISION the Presidents
power over the LGUs since they enjoy local
autonomy.
The power to generally oversee that LGUs
perform their powers and functions in
accordance with law.
Commander in Chief Provision
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-inChief of all armed forces of the Philippines and
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period
not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours
from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
President shall submit a report in person or in writing to
the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by
the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be
determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion
shall persist and public safety requires it.

15

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four

hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without need of a
call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of
the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the
civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected
with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained
shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise
he shall be released.

A. Calling-out Power (IBP vs. Zamora)

B. Martial Law
C. Power to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas Corpus
Pardoning Power
Section 19. Except in cases of impeachment, or as
otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President
may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final
judgment.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the
Congress.

1. Reprieve suspension of the execution of the

death sentence
2. Commutation reduction of the penalty one
degree lower
3. Pardon Private act of the President that
erases the effects of the crime
4. Remit Fines and Forfeitures
5. Amnesty requires the majority vote of all the
members of Congress; erases both the effect of
the crime and the conviction.
Reprieve, commutation and pardon
require that there be a conviction of final
judgment while the amnesty does not require
such.
Reprieve, commutation, pardon and
remittance of fines and forfeitures cannot be
granted in cases of IMPEACHMENT since such
proceedings are not judicial or criminal in
nature
No pardon can be granted fro the
violation of Election laws without the favorable
recommendation of the COMELEC.
No pardon can be granted to persons
convicted of legislative contempt or civil
contempt.

CONDITIONAL PARDON
Is in the nature of a contract between
the (convicted criminal) and the chief executive.
Not subject to judicial review since it is
solely within the judgment of the chief executive
which grant such conditional pardon.
Limitations (pardon)
1. N/A to legislative contempt
2. N/A to impeachment cases
3. Conviction by Final Judgment
4. N/A violation of election laws without the
favorable recommendation of the COMELEC
(Art. 9-c sec. 5)
Borrowing Power
Section 20. The President may contract or guarantee
foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the
Philippines with the prior concurrence of the Monetary
Board, and subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty
days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year,
submit to the Congress a complete report of its decision
on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed
by the Government or government-owned and controlled
corporations which would have the effect of increasing
the foreign debt, and containing other matters as may
be provided by law.

The President may contract or guarantee

foreign laws on behalf of the Rep. of the Phil.
With prior concurrence of the Monetary Board
and subject to limitations provided by laws
Treaty- Making Power
Section 21. No treaty or international agreement shall
be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least
two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.

There must be concurrence of 2/3 votes

of all the members of the Senate.
Mere executive agreement NO NEED for
the 2/3 concurrence of the senate
The power to ratify the treaties is vested
in the President and NOT IN the legislature. The
role of the senate is the giving or withholding of
consent to concur to the ratification.
Budgetary Power

Section 22. The President shall submit to the Congress,

within thirty days from the opening of every regular
session as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a
budget of expenditures and sources of financing,
including receipts from existing and proposed revenue
measures.

Informing power
Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at
the opening of its regular session. He may also appear
before it at any other time.

NOTE
Pardon is available not only to those
guilty of criminal offense but also those found
guilty of ADMINISTRATIVE offense (Llamas vs.
Orbos)
REASONS:
1, Sec. 19 Art. VII makes no distinction between
criminal and administrative offense except with
respect to impeachment.
2. if persons convicted of heinous crime where
evidence of guilt is beyond reasonable doubt are
entitled to pardon, why do we have to deny the
same to those convicted of administrative
offenses where only substantial evidence is
required.
16

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Q&A
1.
F, was on his way home after some
rounds of drinks with friends at night, while
on board a taxi, was stopped at a checkpoint,
established by the COMELEC and the PNP
along Espana, Manila to implement the gun
ban law during the campaign period. Found
inside his attach case was a gram of shabu
and some pornographic DVD materials. At
the police station where he was brought,
upon questioning by some media reporters,
he admitted the ownership of both the shabu
and the pornographic DVD materials.
a. Were the gram of shabu and some
pornographic
DVD
materials
be
admissible in evidence?
The things found are not admissible as
evidence.
Checkpoints are only limited to visual
search of the moving vehicles. The search of his
attach case, amounts to an illegal search, thus
the results are said to be fruits of the
poisonous tree.
b. Was his confession before media men
at the police station be admissible in
evidence?
Yes, such admissions are admissible in
evidence.
Confessions given in response to a
question of the media men, not police men are
admissible.
Where the suspect gave spontaneous
answers to questions of the media men, such
answers are deemed to be voluntary and
admissible. (People vs. Andan)
The SC further ruled that appellants verbal
confessions to the newsmen are not covered by
Section 12(1) and (3) of Article III of the
Constitution and, therefore, admissible in
evidence.
c. What is a stop-and-frisk search?
In the landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, a
stop-and-frisk was defined as the vernacular
designation of the right of a police officer to stop
a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat
him for weapons.
Were a police officer observes an
unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that criminal
activity may be afoot and that the persons with
whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous, where in the course of investigating
this behavior he identified himself as a
policeman and make reasonable inquiries, and
where nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear
for his own or others safety, he is entitled for
the protection of himself or others in the area to
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer
clothing of such persons in an attempt to
discover weapons which might be used to
assault him.
2.
Apprehended for carrying a caliber .38
pistol tucked in his waist at a checkpoint
established by the PNP elements to
implement the gun ban law during the
campaign period, Serafin was brought to the
police station. While at the police station,
when queried by the news reporters present,
he admitted ownership of the firearm and
showed his license to carry firearm duly
issued by the Firearms and Explosive Unit.

Charged and prosecuted for violation of the

gun ban law, during the trial, his counsel was
objecting to the introduction in evidence of
the testimony of the news reporters who
interviewed him at the police station
wherein he admitted ownership of the
firearm contending that he was not
represented by counsel then.
a. Was the arrest of Serafin valid?
Explain.
The arrest was valid, for it was the result of
a warrantless search, such as inflagrante delicto
and also searches in checkpoints.
The law provides that the COMELEC can
impose checkpoint so as to implement the gun
ban law.
b. Is the caliber .38 pistol seized from
Serafin at the checkpoint admissible
in evidence? Clarify.
Yes. Warrantless search are allowed in
checkpoints.
Therefore the results of such search will be
admissible evidence as against the person
possessing such.
c. Was the establishment of checkpoint
to implement the gun ban law
justified? Explain
The checkpoint herein conducted was in
pursuance of the gun ban enforced by the
COMELEC. The COMELEC would be hard put
to implement the ban if its deputized agents
were limited to a visual search of pedestrians. It
would also defeat the purpose for which such
ban was instituted. Those who intend to bring
a gun during said period would know that they
only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate
their malicious designs.
3.
A pre-taped program of the INC upon
review by the MTRCB was found to be
attacking another religious group and was
correspondingly classified as Rated X. In a
petition before the court, the INC contended
that its religious freedom is per se beyond
review by the MTRCB and that it was grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the MTRCB
to classify its pre-taped program as Rated
X simply because it attacked another
religion.
Rule on the 2 contentions of the INC
The right to religious profession and
worship has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to
believe and freedom to act on one's belief. The
first is absolute as long as the belief is confined
within the realm of thought. The second is
subject to regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that affect the
public welfare.
1st contention
The INC's postulate that its religious
freedom is per se beyond review by the MTRCB
should be rejected. Its public broadcast on TV
of its religious programs brings it out of the
bosom of internal belief. Television is a medium
that reaches even the eyes and ears of children.
The exercise of religious freedom can be
regulated by the State when it will bring about
the clear and present danger of a substantive
evil which the State is duty-bound to prevent,
i.e., serious detriment to the more overriding
interest of public health, public morals, or
public welfare. A laissez faire policy on the
exercise of religion can be seductive to the
liberal mind but history counsels the Court
17

against its blind adoption as religion is and

continues to be a volatile area of concern in our
society today. "For sure, we shall continue to
subject any act pinching the space for the free
exercise of religion to a heightened scrutiny but
we shall not leave its rational exercise to the
irrationality of man. For when religion divides
and its exercise destroys, the State should not
stand still." (Iglesia Ni Cristo vs. CA)

trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an

offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping
Law (R.A. 4200), the Secrecy of Bank Deposits
(R.A. 1405) and the Intellectual Property Code
(R.A. 8293).
The Rules of Court on privileged
communication likewise recognize the privacy of
certain information (Section 24, Rule 130[c],
Revised Rules on Evidence). (Ople vs. Torres)

2nd Contention:
The MTRCB may disagree with the
criticisms of other religions by the INC but that
gives it no excuse to interdict such criticisms,
however unclean they may be.
Under our
constitutional scheme, it is not the task of the
State to favor any religion by protecting it
against an attack by another religion. Religious
dogma and beliefs are often at war and to
preserve peace among their followers, especially
the fanatics, the establishment clause of
freedom of religion prohibits the State from
leaning towards any religion. Vis--vis religious
differences, the State enjoys no banquet of
options.
Neutrality alone is its fixed and
immovable stance. In fine, the MTRCB cannot
squelch the speech of the INC simply because it
attacks another religion. In a State where there
ought to be no difference between the
appearance and the reality of freedom of
religion, the remedy against bad theology is
better theology. The bedrock of freedom of
religion is freedom of thought and it is best
served by encouraging the marketplace of
dueling ideas. When the luxury of time permits,
the marketplace of ideas demands that speech
should be met by more speech for it is the spark
of opposite speech, the heat of colliding ideas
that can fan the embers of truth. (Iglesia Ni
Cristo vs. CA)

5.
In his petition to post bail, the judge
conditioned the grant of bail to P on his
arraignment ratiocinating that if he is
granted bail without having been arraigned
first, he might jump bail and therefore, trial
in absentia may not proceed. What
constitutional rights of P will be violated by
such condition imposed by the judge on the
grant of bail to him? Explain.
To condition the grant of bail to an
accused on his arraignment would be to place
him in a position where he has to choose
between (1) filing a motion to quash and thus
delay his release on bail because until his
motion to quash can be resolved, his
arraignment cannot be held, and (2) foregoing
the filing of a motion to quash so that he can be
arraigned at once and thereafter be released on
bail. These scenarios certainly undermine the
accuseds constitutional right not to be put on
trial except upon valid complaint or information
sufficient to charge him with a crime and his
right to bail. (Lavides vs. CA)

4.
Is there a constitutional right to
privacy? Explain. What are the zones of
privacy recognized and protected in our
laws.
Yes. The essence of privacy is the right
to be let alone. In the 1965 case of Griswold
vs. Connecticut, the US SC gave more
substance to the right of privacy when it ruled
that the right has a constitutional foundation.
We adopted the Griswold ruling that there is a
constitutional right to privacy.
The SC clarified that the right of privacy
is recognized and enshrined in several
provisions of our Constitution. It is expressly
recognized in Section 3(1) of the Bill of Rights.
Other facets of the right to privacy are protected
in various provisions of the Bill of Rights, i.e.,
Sections. 1, 2, 6, 8, and 17. (Ople vs. Torres).
The zones of privacy recognized and
protected in our laws.
The Civil Code provides that every
person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and
other persons and punishes as actionable torts
several acts by a person of meddling and prying
into the privacy of another. It also holds a
public officer or employee or any private
individual liable for damages for any violation of
the rights and liberties of another person, and
recognizes the privacy of letters and other
private communications.
The Revised Penal Code makes a crime
the violation of secrets by an officer, the
revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and

6.
Discuss the various jurisdictions in
election cases and quo warranto proceedings,
including appeals.
Position

Election
Protest
30 days after
proclamation

Quo
Warranto
10 days after
proclamation

Members of
Congress

15 days after
proclamation
= SET
10 days after
proclamation
= HRET

15 days after
proclamation
= SET
10 days after
proclamation
= HRET

Regional,
Provincial,
City,
Component
City
Officials
Municipal
Officials

Within 10
days after
proclamation
COMELEC

Within 10
days after
proclamation
COMELEC

Within 10
days after
proclamation
RTC
Within 10
days after
proclamation
MTC

Within 10
days after
proclamation
RTC
Within 10
days after
proclamation
MTC

Pres & VP

Barangay
Officials

Jurisdiction
PET,
SC
sitting
en
banc.
Sole
judge = no
appeal
Art. 7, Sec 4,
par 7
SET/HRET,
sole judge =
no appeal.
Only
certiorari to
the SC
Art. 6, Sec
17
No appeal =
only
certiorari to
SC
Art IX-C Sec
2, par 2
Appeal
to
COMELEC
Certiorari to
SC
Appeal
to
COMELEC =
final
executory
not
appealable
Certiorari to
SC

ELECTION PROTEST - filed within 10 days from

proclamation of results of election by any
candidate who has filed a certificate of
candidacy and has been voted upon for the
same officer on the grounds of:
Fraud;
Terrorism;
Irregularities, or;

18

Illegal acts, committed before, during or

after casting and counting of votes
QUO WARRANTO - filed within 10 days from
proclamation of results by any registered voter
in the constituency on the grounds of:
Ineligibility, or;
Disloyalty to the Republic
7.
Pandong Panday filed his certificate of
candidacy for VP on the last day of filing
certificate of candidacy. A petition for
disqualification was filed by his opponent in
the COMELEC asserting that he committed a
material misrepresentation when he claimed
in his certificate of candidacy that he is a
natural-born citizen when in truth and in
fact is that he is not a Filipino citizen. The
petition was filed on the 25th day from the
last day of filing certificate of candidacy. A
group of lawyers subsequently filed a
petition in the SC challenging his citizenship
qualification and questioned the assumption
of jurisdiction by the COMELEC contending
that the latter committed grave abuse of
discretion when it assumed jurisdiction
because jurisdiction is with the SC pursuant
to Sec. 4, par. 7 Art VII of the Constitution
which provides that the SC en banc shall be
the sole judge of all contests relating to the
elections; returns, and qualifications of the
President and VP.
a. Should the petition be dismissed by
the COMELEC on the ground that it
was file out of time? Explain.
The Election Law provides that petition
seeking to deny due course or cancel a COC
exclusively on the ground of material
misrepresentation should be filed at any time
not later than 25 days from the time of filing of
the COC. Such period is mandatory and
jurisdictional.
In the case at bar Pandong Panday filed his
COC on the last day of filing, thereby the 25
days period starts from that date, which makes
the case prosper.
b. Do the lawyers have sufficient locus
standi to question his citizenship
qualification under the given facts?
Discuss.
Yes. In a quo warranto proceedings, the
issue is based on the eligibility of the candidate
which entails his/ her qualifications, which can
be filed by any registered voter.
Locus standi is defined as the personal
and substantial interest in the case such that
the party has sustained or will sustain a direct
injury as a result of the governmental act that is
being challenged.
The lawyers are registered voters.
c. Will you agree with the contention of
the lawyers that the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion when it
assumed jurisdiction over the case
because jurisdiction should have been
with the SC en banc? Clarify.
Yes, the law is explicit.
Sec. 4, par. 7 Art VII of the Constitution
which provides that the SC en banc shall be the
sole judge of all contests relating to the
elections; returns, and qualifications of the
President and VP.
Being the sole judge the COMELEC is not
vested with jurisdictions, the qualification issue
is lodged to the SC en banc acting as PET.

8.
A group of unarmed demonstrators,
numbering about 10,000 made up of urban
poor slum dwellers, students, senior citizens,
and several religious personalities marched
along Mendiola on their way to Malacanang.
They were carrying banners and streamers
very critical of the Arroyo administration.
Their leaders were delivering fiery speeches,
exhorting them to be very vigilant in the
protection of basic constitutional rights
which, they claimed, are significantly
trampled upon and reduced to a myth by the
present
dispensation.
After
crossing
Mendiola Bridge, they were dispersed by
police and military personnel assigned to
secure the Palace grounds with truncheons,
water cannons and tear gases, causing
injuries to several of them.
a. Applying the Dangerous Tendency
Rule was the violent dispersal of the
demonstration and the subsequent
arrest, detention and prosecution of
the leaders justified? Discuss.
The dispersal is valid.
Under the Dangerous Tendency Rule, a
mere tendency to create a substantive evil is
enough for a subsequent arrest, detention and
prosecution of a person even if the evil expected
does not result.
In the case at bar, it is plain that there is
a tendency that those demonstrators would
create a substantive evil. Thus, the presence of
such substantive evil would suffice to justify the
dispersal and the subsequent arrest, detention
and prosecution of the leaders justified.
b. What about if the Clear and Present
Danger Rule was applied?
NO, under the Clear and Present Danger Rule,
the existence of a substantive evil must be of a
clear and present danger type. This test is more
liberal.
Hence, unless there is a clear showing
that a substantive evil exist in the instant case,
the violent dispersal is not justified. It is crystal
clear that the demonstrators are only exercising
their right.
c. Distinguish
content-based
restriction on free speech from
content-neutral restrictions, and
explain the significant of knowing the
distinction?
Content-based restrictions are imposed
because of the content of the speech and are
therefore subject to the clear and Present
Danger test. An example is plebiscite to ratify
creation of Autonomous Region of Cordillera
Content-neutral - It is directed restrictions
are not concerned with the time, place of
speech. An example is the posting of campaign
materials
9.
While on board a jeepney in Quiapo,
Manila, Kumander Lawin, an obscure leader
of the NPA, was spotted by police and
military authorities upon identification by
one of his former comrades who is now a
government agent. He was arrested without
warrant.
The
authorities
immediately
proceeded to his residence in Bustillos,
Sampaloc
Manila,
and
searched
the
apartment dwelling where he resides without
warrant. Taken from his residence was a
caliber .45 pistol with several rounds of
ammunition and assorted rebel propaganda
materials. At the police station where he was
19

brought, upon questioning by some media

reporters, he admitted ownership of the
caliber .45 pistol with several rounds of
ammunition, as well as the assorted rebel
propaganda materials
a. Was his arrest valid?
The arrest is not valid. The case at bar does
not fall to any of the Instances in the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure particularly Sec 5
Rule 113, where an arrest can be made without
a warrant.
In the instant case, there was no crime
committed by Kumander Lawin, nor there was
probable cause to believe that a crime was
committed by Lawin under the facts and
circumstances of the person arresting him.
What led to the arrest was a mere tip and the
arrest was made when a person is just riding a
jeepney which would not create a suspicion at
all of his supposed identity.
b. Were the caliber .45 pistol with
several rounds of ammunition as well
as the assorted rebel propaganda
materials admissible in evidence
against him? Clarify.
No, the caliber pistol and the assorted NBA
propagandas are not admissible as evidences.
As the law provides that in violation of a valid
search warrant, such products are fruits of a
poisonous tree.
10.
Mang Nardo solicited the repair of
their community chapel. He knocked on the
house of a judge and he was asked whether
he had a permit to solicit from DSWD. He
had none. He was charged for violation of PD
1564(The Solicitation Law) which makes it
criminal offense if one solicits for charitable
and public welfare purposes without permit
from DSWD. He was convicted by the trial
court.
a. Explain why his conviction should be
reversed on appeal?
PD 1564, prohibits solicitation for charitable
or public welfare purpose but not for a religious
purpose.
Solicitation
of
contributions
for
the
construction of a church is not solicitation for
"charitable or public welfare purpose" but for a
religious purpose, and a religious purpose is not
necessarily a charitable or public welfare
purpose.
Fund campaign for the construction or repair of
a church calls upon the virtue of faith and not
charity.
Since Mang Nardo, solicited the repair of
their community chapel and merely exercised
his right to religion, there is no way he did
violate PD 1564.
b. What are the 2 aspects of freedom of
religion? Briefly discuss each.
The right to religious profession and worship
has a two-fold aspect, viz., freedom to believe
and freedom to act on ones belief. The first is
absolute as long as the belief is confined within
the realm of thought. The second is subject to
regulation where the belief is translated into
external acts that affect the public welfare
c. Comment on the constitutionality of
PD 1564.
PD 1564 is constitutional.
The purpose of the Decree is to protect the
public against fraud in view of the proliferation
of fund campaigns for charity and other civic

projects. Since religious fund drives are usually

conducted among those belonging to the same
religion, the need for public protection against
fraudulent solicitations does not exist in as
great a degree as does the need for protection
with respect to solicitations for charity or civic
projects as to justify state regulation.
Further more, to require a government
permit before solicitation for religious purpose
may be allowed is to lay a prior restraint on the
free exercise of religion.
Such restraint, if allowed, may well justify
requiring a permit before a church can make
Sunday collections or enforce tithing.
To read the Decree, therefore, as including
within its reach solicitations for religious
purposes would be to construe it in a manner
that it violates the Free Exercise of Religion
Clause of the Constitution.
11.
Explain
the
void-for-vagueness
doctrine, as well as the doctrine of over
breadth, and how they relate to due
process.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine states
that a statute which either forbids or requires
the doing of an act in terms so vague that men
of common intelligence must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ as to its application, it
violates the first essential of due process of law.
On the other hand, the overbreadth
doctrine decrees that a governmental purpose
may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the
area of protected freedoms.
12.
The US Government pursuant to the
provisions of the RP-US Extradition Treaty
officially
requested
the
Philippine
Government to extradite MJ to the US to
face several criminal charges filed against
him when he was still in the US. The request
was transmitted to the DFA to the DOJ for
evaluation pursuant to PD 1069 (The RP
Extradition Law). MJ requested the DOJ to
furnish him copies of the request and the
supporting documents and evidences so that
he can prepare his defense. Meanwhile, he
ran for Congressman and won.
a. Will it constitute denial of MJs right
to due process if the DOJ will deny
his request?
No, MJ is not yet entitled to those
documents or evidence relying on the Balance
Of Interest Test at its evaluation Stage. AN
extraditees right to know is momentarily
withheld during the evaluation stage of the
extradition proceedings to accommodate the
more compelling
interest of the State to
prevent the escape which can be precipitated by
premature information of the basis of the
request for his extradition. This is but a softrestraint on his right to due process which
would not deprive him of fundamental fairness
should he decide to resist the request for his
extradition to the US. There is no denial of due
process as long as fundamental fairness is
assured a party.
b. Assuming that the petition for his
extradition is filed by the DOJ in the
RTC, before the judge issues a warrant
for his arrest as mandated by PD
1069, is prior notice and hearing
required?
NO, On the Basis of the Extradition Law
20

It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD

1069, our Extradition Law, uses the word
immediate to qualify the arrest of the accused.
This qualification would be rendered nugatory
by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest
warrant. 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.
On the Basis of the Constitution
Even Section 2 of Article 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.

consequences of the extradition case against

their representative, including his detention
pending the final resolution of the case.
Premises considered and in line with Jalosjos,
we are constrained to rule against his claim that
his election to public office is by itself a
compelling reason to grant him bail.

No it is not necessary. If the accused were

allowed to be heard and necessarily to present
evidence during the prima facie determination
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, what
would stop him from presenting his entire
plethora of defense at this stage, if he so desires
in his effort to negate a prima facie finding.
Such
a
procedure
could
convert
the
determination of a prima facie case to a full
blown trial of the main case superfluous. This
scenario is also anathema to the summary
nature of extraditions.
c. Should MJ be allowed to post bail
during pendency of extradition case
considering that he enjoys the
presumption of innocence? Reason.
As suggested by the use of the word
conviction, the constitutional provision on
bail, as well as Section 4 of Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court, applies only when a person has
been arrested and detained for violation of
Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to
extradition proceedings, because extradition
courts do not render judgments of conviction or
acquittal.
It follows that the constitutional
provision on bail will not apply to a case like
extradition, where the presumption of innocence
is not an issue.

Secs 1, 2, 3, 12, and 17.

Due process clause;
Equal Protection Clause;
Unreasonable Searches and Arrests;
In-custodial Investigation;
Rights against self incrimination.
Evidence obtained from such are
considered as fruit of the poisonous tree,
which means that such not voluntarily given
and were done in violation of the law. Such are
incompetent evidence and thus excluded by the
rules.

d. During
the
pendency
of
the
extradition proceeding in the RTC,
should he be allowed to post bail so
that he can represent his constituents
who elected him as Congressman?
NO, bail may be applied for and granted as an
exception, only upon a clear and convincing
showing: (1) that, once granted bail, the
applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to
the community; and (2) that there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances
including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited
by the highest court in the requesting state
when it grants provisional liberty in extradition
cases therein.
e. Disenfranchisement argument.
It must be noted that even before private
respondent ran for and won a congressional
seat in Manila, it was already of public
knowledge that the US was requesting his
extradition. Hence, his constituents were or
should
have
been
prepared
for
the

f. Exceptions to grant of bail

Bail may be applied for and granted as an
exception, only upon a clear and convincing
showing: (1) that, once granted bail, the
applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to
the community; and (2) that there exist special,
humanitarian and compelling circumstances
including, as a matter of reciprocity, those cited
by the highest court in the requesting state
when it grants provisional liberty in extradition
cases therein.
13.
What are the provisions of the Bill of
Rights governed by the exclusionary rule on
evidence? Briefly discuss each.

14.
What is International Humanitarian
Law and how it is distinguish with Human
Rights Law?
International humanitarian law is 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
participating in the hostilities and restricts the
means and methods of warfare. International
humanitarian law is also known as the law of
war or the law of armed conflict. International
humanitarian law is part of international law,
which is the body of rules governing relations
between States. International law is contained
in agreements between States treaties or
conventions , in customary rules, which
consist of State practise considered by them as
legally binding, and in general principles.
Human Rights law is those provided in
Article III, and is compound only by the
government to its citizens.
15.
M was a governor in one of the
provinces in Luzon. An anti-graft case was
filed against him in the Ombudsman in
connection with certain contracts he entered
into on behalf of the province. While the
Ombudsman was investigating, there came
the election and he ran for Congressman. He
was
elected
as
Congressman.
The
Ombudsman later filed the anti-graft case
against him before the SB. The SB, pursuant
to Section 13, RA 3019, as amended, issued
the suspension order against him addressed
to
the
Speaker
of
the
House
of
Representatives
for
enforcement.
M
questioned the regularity of the issuance of
such
suspension
order
against
him,
contending that first, the offense was alleged
to have been committed by him while he was
21

still governor, a different office from that

which he now occupies and second, the
suspension order encroaches on the power of
the House of Representatives to punish its
members for
disorderly behavior and
suspend or expel a member pursuant to
Section 16 (3), Article VII of the Constitution
and therefore, violates the doctrine of
separation of powers. Rule on the two
contentions of M.
1st contention:
His contention is not valid.
Section 13 of RA 3019 provides that any
public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under
this Act or under the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall
be suspended from office.
Even if he is now a Congressman, still
the case will prosper. The suspension from
office, means any office, which he is holding.
2nd Contention:
Such suspension does not encroach on
the power of the House of Representatives to
punish its members for disorderly behavior and
suspend or expel a member, for the suspension
is base on a pending case of violation of RA
3019.
As stated in the Constitution, the
suspension power of the Congress is limited to
violation of any member of its own rules of
proceedings.
a.

Rule on the contention that his

election serves as a Condonation by
the
people
of
whatever
infraction/offense
he
may
have
committed during his prior term as
governor
A public official could not be removed for
misconduct committed during a prior term and
that his reelection operated as a condonation of
the officers previous misconduct to the extent
of cutting-off the right to remove him therefore.
But that was because in that case, before the
petition questioning the validity of the
administrative decision removing petitioner
could be decided, the term of office during
which the alleged misconduct was committed
expired. Removal cannot extend beyond the
term during which the alleged misconduct was
committed. If a public official is not removed
before his term of office expires, he can no
longer be removed if he is thereafter reelected
for another term.
16.
Arnold Santos filed his COC for
Mayor, notwithstanding that he had already
served as Mayor for 3 consecutive terms. A
disqualification case was filed against him in
the COMELEC by his opponent before the
election. The COMELEC ruled that indeed
Arnold Santos is now disqualified from
running again for Mayor, since he had
already served as such for 3 consecutive
terms, and cancelled his COC. Immediately
thereafter, Larry Santos, his son, filed his
COC as substitute candidate to his father
upon nomination of their political party. The
opponent questioned the substitution in
another petition filed before the COMELEC.
The
COMELEC,
however,
was
not
immediately able to resolve the petition
before the election. Larry Santos won in the

election and was proclaimed Mayor and

assumed office ad Mayor.
a. May the COMELEC still continue to
resolve the petition (questioning the
substitution) after Larry Santos was
elected as Mayor and assumed office
as such? Explain.
Yes, as provided under Section 6 of the Electoral
Reform Law of 1987, the COMELEC shall
continue
to
exercise
jurisdiction
over
disqualification cases not decided after the
elections.
b. Should the COMELEC rule in favor of
the petitioner (that indeed there was
no valid substitution)
Yes, even if the substitute candidate possess
the qualification as required by law, such as
nominated by the political party and he belongs
to such, still he cannot qualify as a substitute
candidate.
The law mandates that for a candidate to
be validly substituted he must first be a
candidate, where his COC was cancelled; he is
not a candidate and therefore cannot be validly
substituted.
c. If indeed the substitution is not valid,
should the votes cast in favor of Larry
Santos be considered stray votes
thereby allowing the proclamation of
the opponent as duly elected Mayor?
Elaborate.
No, the votes cast should not be considered
as stray votes.
Section 12 of RA 9006 provides that in cases of
valid substitution after the official ballots have
been printed, the votes cast for the substituted
candidates shall be considered as stray votes
but shall not invalidate the whole ballot. This
rule shall not apply if the substitute candidate
is of the same family name.
17.
What is the constitutional Writ of
Amparo, and state the constitutional basis of
its promulgation by the SC.
The SC adopted the writ of amparo in
order to effectively shield a person against the
violation of human rights by arbitrary
authorities.
Justice Azcuna defined amparo as a
special constitutional writ to protect or enforce a
constitutional right (other than physical liberty
which is already covered by the writ of habeas
corpus), in consonance with the power of the
Supreme Court to adopt rules to protect or
enforce constitutional rights.
Art.
8,
section
5,
par.5,
1987
constitution provides for the rule making power
of the SC:
- Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and the enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleadings, practice and procedure in all
courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. 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.
Rules of procedure of special courts and quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
18.
Mariano, an employee of the PCSO,
filed his COC for VM of Puerto Princesa, a
component city of the Province of Palawan.
He lost in the election but he learned that
22

his opponent engaged in massive vote-buying

during the elections.
a. What remedy may he avail and where
should he file it, including appeal if
the action is decided against him?
File an election protest within 10 days after
the proclamation of the winner to the
COMELEC. If it was decided against him, he
should file a petition for certiorari alleging grave
abuse of discretion to the SC. NO appeal for
they exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over
such cases. Remedy is to file a petition for
certiorari to the SC.
b. Will it make any difference if instead,
he ran for VM of the Municipality of
San Juan, Metro Manila?
Yes, for a municipal official position, the
remedy is to file an election protest within 10
days after the proclamation of the winner to the
RTC. If it was decided against him, he should
appeal to the COMELEC. Decisions, final orders
or rulings of the COMELEC are final, executory
and not appealable in this case, so remedy is to
file a petition for certiorari to the SC.
c. What is the effect of his filing of COC
with respect to his employment at the
PCSO? Can he still reassume his
position at the PCSO? Discuss.
He is deemed ipso facto resigned from office
as provided in Sec 66 of the OEC.
He cannot reassume his position at the
PCSO.
19.
Assuming that Marcial is a candidate
and he lost in the elections. Feeling that he
was cheated, discuss the appropriate remedy
he should take and before what body should
he commence the action if the office he
aspired for is that of:
a. Member of the Sangguniang Barangay
of his barangay in a HUC;
File an election protest within 10 days after
the proclamation of the winner to the MTC. . If it
was decided against him, he should appeal to
the COMELEC. Decisions, final orders or rulings
of the COMELEC are final, executory and not
appealable in this case, so remedy is to file a
petition for certiorari to the SC.
b. VM of a Municipality;
File an election protest within 10 days after
the proclamation of the winner to the RTC. If it
was decided against him, he should appeal to
the COMELEC. Decisions, final orders or rulings
of the COMELEC are final, executory and not
appealable in this case, so remedy is to file a
petition for certiorari to the SC.
c. Mayor of an ICC;
File an election protest within 10 days after
the proclamation of the winner to the
COMELEC. The COMELEC has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over them thus the
remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to the
SC.
d. Congressman of a lone congressional
district;
File an election protest within 10 days after
the proclamation of the winner to the HRET. If it
was decided against him, he should file a
petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of
discretion to the SC. NO appeal for the HRET for
it is the sole judge of all contests relating to

election, returns
Congressman.

and

qualifications

of

the

e. VP of the Republic;
File an election protest within 30 days after
the proclamation of the winner to the PET,
where the SC decides such en banc. NO appeal
for the PET for it is the sole judge of all contests
relating to election, returns and qualifications of
the P and VP.
20.
Marc was elected VG in May 1992. In
March 1993, the duly elected Governor died,
and then Marc succeeded Governor. In the
May 1995 election, he ran for Governor and
won. In the May 1998 election ran again for
Governor and won. In the May 2001 election,
he again file his COC for governor but his
opponent questioned the candidacy before
the COMELEC contending that since he has
already served 3 consecutive terms as
governor, he is no longer entitled to run. The
COMELEC however, failed to resolve the
disqualification case and in the election, he
lost. Marc seasonably filed an election
protest and in January 2002, he won in the
election protest and was proclaimed and
assumed office as governor. In connection
with the May 2004 election, he consulted
you whether he can still run for governor
again.
a. Give your advice, citing reasons.
Conditions for three-term rule to apply:
Elected for 3 consecutive terms;
Fully served the 3 consecutive terms.
Considering that he has served the
Mayorship for only two terms, the 1995-1998
and 1998-2001.
And that there is an
involuntary act, where he did not serve as
Mayor, that is when he lost to the election
contest filed. Thus he can run for mayor in
2004.
b. Discuss the 2 policies enunciated in
the constitutional provisions (Sec. 8,
Art. X) prohibiting local elective
officials from serving for more than 3
consecutive terms in the same
elective office.
Prevent Political Dynasty = so that the place will
not be at the realm of a political power vested in
one family.
Enhancing freedom of choice = so that there can
be another candidate which the voters can vote
upon.
21.
What are the 2 kinds of preventive
suspension under CSL? When is a public
officer subjected to preventive suspension
entitled to payment of backwages?
There are two kinds of preventive
suspension of civil service employees who are
charged with offenses punishable by removal or
suspension:
(1)Preventive
suspension
pending
investigation is not a penalty. It is a measure
intended to enable the disciplining authority to
investigate charges against respondent by
preventing the latter from intimidating or in any
way influencing witnesses against him. If the
investigation is not finished and a decision is
not rendered within that period, the suspension
will be lifted and the respondent will
automatically
be
reinstated.
If
after
investigation respondent is found innocent of
the charges and is exonerated, he should be
23

reinstated. However, no compensation was due

for the period of preventive suspension pending
investigation;
(2) Preventive suspension pending
appeal is actually punitive although it is in
effect subsequently considered illegal if
respondent is exonerated and the administrative
decision finding him guilty is reversed. Hence,
he should be reinstated with full pay for the
period of the suspension. (Gloria v. CA, G.R.
No. 131012, April 21, 1999, En Banc
[Mendoza])
22.
Dennis Puzoy, a utility worker in a
certain government office, filed his COC for
Senator in connection with the forthcoming
elections. He does not belong to any political
party and had no political machinery to
launch a nationwide campaign for Senator. It
was learned that there was a pending
administrative case against him before his
office for grave misconduct and he was in
fact placed under preventive suspension for
90 days. During
the
campaign,
the
administrative case was decided and he was
not found guilty. 5 days before the election,
a petition to disqualify him was filed before
the COMELEC on the ground that he was a
nuisance candidate.
a. Will the petition to disqualify him on
the ground that he is a nuisance
candidate prosper?
Nuisance candidates who have no bonafide
intention to run for the office for which the
certificate of candidacy has been filed and
would thus prevent a faithful election
There should be a showing that:
the certificate of candidacy has been
filed to put the election process in
mockery/dispute;
the intent for filing is to cause confusion
among the voters by the similarity of the
names of the registered candidates; or
there are other circumstances which
clearly demonstrates that the candidate
has no bona fide intention to run for the
office.
In the case at bar, there is no political
machinery to launch a nationwide campaign
for Senatorship, thus leading to put the
election into a mockery.
b. Is he entitled to be reinstated to his
former
position
considering
his
exoneration?
Yes. The law provides that a favorable decision
will bring him back to his position.
c. Can he validly demand for the
payment
of
his
back
salaries
equivalent to the period of his
preventive suspension?
NO. The preventive suspension happened
pending investigation, thus such was a measure
to enable the disciplining authority to
investigate charges effectively.
If the employee is found to be innocent
afterwards, he cannot claim backwages.
23.
On her way to check-in at the predeparture area in NIAA, Ms. L. Johnson, an
American tourist was frisked by the lady
guard when the metal detector sounded an
alarm as she passed through. The lady guard
felt something hard and bulging in her
abdominal area, the lady guard asked what it
was. She alleged that it was an additional

panty girdle as she just had an ectopic

pregnancy. The guard unsatisfied by her
answer reported the matter to her police
superior. The officer directed that Ms.
Johnson be brought to the nearby ladies
restroom to determine what the bulging was.
In the course of the search, where she was
directed to undress, white crystalline
substances contained in 2 transparent
plastic bags were found neatly tied on her
tummy. The substances were later found to
be shabu when subjected to examination by
forensic experts at the NBI crime lab. During
the trial for violation of RA 6425, she
questioned the admissibility of the shabu
introduced in evidence against her by the
prosecution for being the fruit of the
poisonous tree as they were against
unreasonable
searches
and
seizures
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
a. May the search be considered a search
incidental to lawful arrest? Clarify?
The
packs
of
methamphetamine
hydrochloride having thus been obtained
through a valid warrantless search, they are
admissible in evidence against the accusedappellant herein. Corollarily, her subsequent
arrest, although likewise without warrant, was
justified since it was effected upon the discovery
and recovery of shabu in her person in
flagrante delicto. (People vs. Leila Johnson)
b. Was her warrantless arrest justified
under the circumstances? Explain.
Yes the arrest is valid.
Since the search was valid and because
of the fact that the officers found shabu, such
arrest was valid. The officers had that probable
cause and knowledge that an unlawful act is
happening in their presence.
Persons may lose the protection of the
search and seizure clause by exposure of their
persons or property to the public in a manner
reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of
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
nations airports.
c. Rule on the admissibility in evidence
of the shabu?
It is admissible in evidence. Ms. L. Johnson
cannot invoke the evidence as being the fruit of
the poisonous tree, for the search conducted
was a valid.
Ordinary constitutional protections against
warrantless searches and seizures do not apply
to routine airport procedures.
24.
Mayor G of Olongapo City was
appointed by the President as Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of the SBMA
pursuant to the provision in the SBMA
Charter which substantially provides that
the SBMA shall be headed by a Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, provided that during
the 1st year of its operation, the President
shall appoint the Mayor of Olongapo City as
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
a. Cite and discuss 2 constitutional
grounds to nullify his appointment as
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of the SBMA?
Encroachment on the power of the President to
appoint.
24

The legislature cannot provide that only

the Mayor of Olongapo will be appointed as
Chief Executive Officer, for to do so will mean
only to encroach or share the power of
appointment of the president. Such will be a
violation of the Doctrine of Separation of
Powers, for such power is executive in nature.
Prohibition on the holding of two offices
The Constitution provides that an
elective
official
cannot
be
eligible
for
appointment or designation in any capacity to
nay public office or position during his term. Art
IX B Sec 7.
b. Assuming that the SC later declare his
appointment unconstitutional, should
he be made to reimburse the
government whatever salaries and
emoluments he received as Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer?
I submit that it cannot be reimbursed anymore,
having served such function, it is but right to be
paid the salaries for such position, even if
declared not a valid one.
Q:
Who is a de facto officer?
A.
A de facto officer is one who is in
possession of an office and who openly exercises
its functions under color of an appointment or
election, even though such appointment or
election may be irregular.
Q.
Is the de facto officer entitled to
receive emoluments for actual services
rendered?
A.
Yes. The Court has allowed a de facto
officer to receive emoluments for actual services
rendered but only when there is no de jure
officer, thus: in cases where there is no de jure
officer, a de facto officer who, in good faith, has
had possession of the office and has discharged
the duties pertaining thereto, is legally entitled
to the emoluments of the office, and may in
appropriate action recover the salary, fees and
other compensations attached to the office.
(Civil Liberties Union vs. Executive Secretary)
In fine, the rule is that where there is a
de jure officer, a de facto officer, during his
wrongful incumbency, is not entitled to the
emoluments attached to the office, even if he
occupied the office in good faith. (General
Manager vs. Monserate, April 17, 2002)
Q.
May the de jure officer recover from a
de facto officer the salary received by the
latter during the time of his wrongful tenure,
even though he (the de facto officer)
occupied the office in good faith and under
color of title?
A.
Yes. A de facto officer, not having a good
title, takes the salaries at his risk and must,
therefore, account to the de jure officer for
whatever salary he received during the period of
his wrongful tenure.
De jure
Lawful title to office, even
though deprived of title to
office
No need of actual possession
Valid acts

De Facto
Color of title to an office
which is imperfect.
There is actual possession
Valid only to third parties
who relies on such acts
Not to benefit from it, unless
assumption is in good faith
and if there is no de jure
officer that gets the salary.
Ripens to de jure if not
questioned in quo warranto

proceeding within 1 year

upon assumption of office.

25.

Define and discuss the following:

a. Doctrine of Effective Nationality;
This principle is expressed in Article 5 of
the Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of
Nationality Laws as follows:
Art. 5. Within a third State a person
having more than one nationality shall be
treated as if he had only one. Without prejudice
to the application of its law in matters of
personal status and of any convention in force,
a third State shall, of the nationalities which
any
such
person
possesses,
recognize
exclusively in its territory either the nationality
of the country in which he is habitually and
principally resident or the nationality of the
country with which in the circumstances he
appears to be in fact most closely connected.
(Frivaldo vs. COMELEC)
b. Ecclesiastical Affair
Involves the relationship between the church
and its members and relates to the matters of
faith,
religious
doctrines,
worship
and
governance of congregation:
Involves the following:
Proceedings of excommunications;
Ordinations of religious ministers;
Other activities with attached agencies.
c. Proximity Rule
Under the proximity rule, the occupant of a
particular position could be considered a
confidential employee if the predominant reason
why he was chosen by the appointing authority
was the latters belief that he can share a close
intimate relationship with the occupant which
ensures freedom of discussion without fear or
embarrassment or misgivings of possible
betrayal of personal trust or confidential
matters of state. Withal, where the position
occupied is more remote from that of the
appointing authority, the element of trust
between them is no longer predominant. (CSC
v. Salas, 274 SCRA 414, June 19, 1997)
d. Arrest in hot pursuit
When an offense has just been committed and
the peace officer or a private person has a
probable cause to believe based on the personal
facts and circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
e. In Flagrante Delicto
When in the presence of the peace officer or a
private person, the person to be arrested is
committing, or is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense.
f. Doctrine of qualified political agency
The acts or decisions of members of the
executive department, bureaus and other offices
are deemed to be the acts of the President
Himself if it involves the regular conduct of
business unless disapproved by him.
g. Rights in Custodial Investigation
Section 12. of Article III provides:
(1) Any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be
25

waived except in writing and in the presence of

counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.
h. Doctrine of Fair Comment
The doctrine of fair comment means that
while in general every discreditable imputation
publicly made is deemed false, because every
man is presumed innocent until his guilt is
judicially proved, and every false imputation is
deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a
public person in his public capacity, it is not
necessarily actionable.
In order that such
discreditable imputation to a public official may
be actionable, it must either be a false allegation
of fact or a comment based on a false
supposition. If the comment is an expression of
opinion, based on established facts, then it is
immaterial that the opinion happens to be
mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be
inferred from the facts. (Borjal vs. CA)
i.

Doctrine
of
Exhaustion
of
Administrative Remedies
Before a party is allowed to seek the
intervention of the court, it is a condition that
he should have availed of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him.
j.

Doctrine
of
Condonation
or
Forgiveness
The Court should never remove an elective
public officer for acts prior to his present term
or office. To do otherwise would be to deprive
the people of their right to elect their officers;
when the people have elected a man to office, it
must be assumed that they did this with the
knowledge of his life and character, and that
they disregard or forgave his fault or
misconduct. Applies only to administrative
cases and not to criminal Cases.
26.
Discuss the 2 kinds of involuntary
extra-judicial confession under Sec. 12. Art.
III?
Two kinds of involuntary or coerced
confessions treated in this constitutional
provision: (1) those which are the product of
third degree methods such as torture, force,
violence, threat, intimidation, which are dealt
with in paragraph 2 of Section 12, and;
(2) those which are given without the benefit of
Miranda warnings, which are the subject of
paragraph 1 of the same Section 12.
Extrajudicial confessions are presumed
voluntary, and, in the absence of conclusive
evidence showing the declarants consent in
executing the same has been vitiated, such
confession will be sustained.
Numerous decisions of this Court rule
that for an extrajudicial confession to be
admissible, it must be: 1) voluntary; 2) made
with the assistance of competent and

independent counsel; 3) express; and 4) in

writing.
Preventive Suspension:
Imposed during the pendency of an
administrative
investigation,
preventive
suspension is not a penalty in itself. It is
merely a measure of precaution so that the
employee who is charged may be separated, for
obvious reasons, from the scene of his alleged
misfeasance
while
the
same
is
being
investigated.
Thus preventive suspension is
distinct from the administrative penalty of
removal from office such as the one mentioned
in Sec. 8(d) of P.D. No. 807. While the former
may be imposed on a respondent during the
investigation of the charges against him, the
latter is the penalty which may only be meted
upon him at the termination of the investigation
or the final disposition of the case. (Beja, Sr.
vs. CA)
Next in rank Rule:
One who is next-in-rank is entitled to
preferential consideration for promotion to the
higher vacancy, created by promotion, but it
does not necessarily follow that he and no one
else can be appointed. The rule neither grants a
vested right to the holder nor imposes a
ministerial duty on the appointing authority to
promote such person to the next higher position
Transactional immunity vs.
use-andderivative-use immunity.
Transactional immunity is broader in the
scope of its protection. By its grant, a witness
can no longer be prosecuted for any offense
whatsoever arising out of the act or transaction.
In contrast, by the grant of use-andderivative-use immunity, a witness is only
assured that his or her particular testimony and
evidence derived from it will not be used against
him or her in a subsequent prosecution.
Effects of Filing Certificate of Candidacy:
Candidates holding appointive office or
positions shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from his office. (Sec 66, OEC)
Candidates holding elective office shall
not be considered resigned from his office (Sec
14, RA 9006)
Q:
A is an alien. State whether in the
Philippines he is entitled to the right against
illegal searches and seizures and against
illegal arrests.
A:
Aliens are entitled to the right against
illegal searches and seizures and illegal
arrests. As applied in People v. Chua Ho
San, these rights are available to all persons,
including aliens.
Q: What are the cardinal primary rights
which must be respected even in proceedings
of this character?
A:
(1) The first of these rights is the right to a
hearing;
(2) Not only must the party be given an
opportunity to present his case and to adduce
evidence tending to establish the rights which
he asserts but the tribunal must consider the
evidence presented.
(3) "While the duty to deliberate does not impose
the obligation to decide right, it does imply a
26

necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely,

that of having something to support its decision.
(4) Not only must there be some evidence to
support a finding or conclusion, but the
evidence must be "substantial.
(5) The decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing, or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the
parties affected.
(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of
its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts
of the controversy, and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in
all controversial questions, render its decision
in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues
involved, and the reasons for the decisions
rendered.
Fundamental principles concerning treaties:
1. Pacta sunt servanda it means that
treaties must be observed in good faith despite
hardship on the contracting state, such as
conflicts between the treaty and its constitution
or prejudice to the national interest as a result
of the operation of the treaty.
As a general rule, a party must comply with
the provisions of a treaty and cannot ignore or
modify it without the consent of the other
signatory. Willful disregard or violation of
treaties without just cause is frowned upon by
the society of nations.
2. Rebus sic stantibus according to Jessup,
would justify non-performance of a treaty
obligation if the conditions in relation to which
the parties contracted have changed so
materially and so unexpectedly as to create a
situation in which the exaction of performance
would be unreasonable.
Five Postulates of Extradition:
1. Extradition Is a Major Instrument for the
Suppression of Crime.
First, extradition treaties are entered into
for the purpose of suppressing crime by
facilitating the arrest and custodial transfer of a
fugitive from one state to the other.
2.
The Requesting State Will Accord Due
Process to the Accused.
An extradition treaty presupposes that
both parties thereto have examined, and that
both accept and trust, each others legal system
and judicial process
3. The Proceedings Are Sui Generis.
Extradition proceedings are not criminal
in nature.
In criminal proceedings, the
constitutional rights of the accused are at fore;
in extradition which is sui generis in a class by
itself they are not.
4.
Compliance Shall Be in Good Faith.
Verily, we are bound by pacta sunt
servanda to comply in good faith with our
obligations under the Treaty. This principle
requires that we deliver the accused to the
requesting country if the conditions precedent
to extradition, as set forth in the Treaty, are
satisfied.
5.
There Is an Underlying Risk of Flight.
Persons to be extradited are presumed to
be flight risks. This prima facie presumption
finds reinforcement in the experience of the
executive branch: nothing short of confinement
can ensure that the accused will not flee the

jurisdiction of the requested state in order to

thwart their extradition to the requesting state.
Q: What are the situations covered by the
law on nepotism?
A: Under the definition of nepotism, one is
guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in
favor of a relative within the third civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity of any of the following:
appointing authority;
recommending authority;
chief of the bureau or office; and
person exercising immediate supervision
over the appointee.
Clearly, there are four situations covered. In
the last two mentioned situations, it is
immaterial
who
the
appointing
or
recommending authority is. To constitute a
violation of the law, it suffices that an
appointment is extended or issued in favor of a
relative within the third civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity of the chief of the
bureau or office, or the person exercising
immediate supervision over the appointee.
Q: The "equal protection clause" permits a
valid classification under the following
conditions:
The
classification
must
rest
on
substantial distinction;
The classification must be germane to
the purpose of the law;
The classification must not be limited to
existing conditions only; and
The classification must apply equally to
all members of the same class.
Q: What are some of the recognized
restrictions to the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern?
A:
National
security
matters
and
intelligence information;
Trade or industrial secrets and banking
transactions;
Criminal matters, such as those relating
to the apprehension, the prosecution and the
detention of criminals, which courts may not
inquire into prior to such arrest, detention and
prosecution;
Other confidential information.
The
Ethical Standards Act (R.A. No. 6713, enacted
on February 20, 1989) further prohibits public
officials and employees from using or divulging
confidential or classified information officially
known to them by reason of their office and not
made available to the public.
Q: Discuss the two kinds of double jeopardy.
The first sentence of Clause 20, Section
1, Article III of the Constitution ordains that no
person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense.
The second sentence of said clause
provides that if an act is punishable by a law
and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act.
Thus, the first sentence prohibits double
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense
whereas, the second contemplates double
jeopardy of punishment for the same act.
Under the first sentence, one may be
twice put in jeopardy of punishment of the same
act, provided that he is charged with different
27

offenses, or the offense charged in one case is

not included in, or does not include, the crime
charged in the other case. The second sentence
applies, even if the offense charged are not the
same, owing to the fact that one constitutes a
violation of an ordinance and the other a
violation of statute. If the two charges are
based on one and the same act, conviction or
acquittal under either the law or the ordinance
shall bar a prosecution under the other.
Incidentally, such conviction or acquittal is not
indispensable to sustain the plea of double
jeopardy of punishment or the same offense. So
long as jeopardy has been attached under one
of the informations charging said offense, the
defense may be availed of in the other case
involving the same offense, even if there has
been neither conviction nor acquittal in either
case.
Q: The International School Alliance of
Educators (ISAE) questioned the point-of hire
classification employed by International
School, Inc. to justify distinction in salary
rates between foreign hires and local hires,
i.e., salary rates of foreign hires are higher
by 25% than their local counterparts, as
discriminatory and, therefore, violates the
equal protection clause. The International
School contended that this is necessary in
order to entice foreign hires to leave their
domicile and work here. Resolve.
In this case, we find the point-of-hire
classification employed by respondent School to
justify the distinction in the salary rates of
foreign-hires and local hires to be an invalid
classification. There is no reasonable distinction
between the services rendered by foreign-hires
and local-hires. The practice of the School of
according higher salaries to foreign-hires
contravenes public policy and, certainly, does
not
deserve
the
sympathy
of
this
Court.(International
School
Alliance
of
Educators vs. Quisumbing)

28