Political Law Notes

Political Law Review
Lecture (Atty. Bong Lopez)
POLITICAL LAW
- That branch of public law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of the State
and
defines the relations of the State with the inhabitants of its territory.
Constituent: Government Function
: Private Function or proprietary functions not for governance
*If it is not necessary but the private sector is not seen

*Private sector perform its functions but not that efficient
*The distinction becomes blurred
IMPORTANCE
(1) Government cannot be sued without its consent
- simply entering into a contract does not make it suable or liable
IMPRACTICAL
Q: can the government be sued performing its governmental fxn?
A: GR: No
XPNS: with its consent
Suability vs. Liability

- When the State gives its consent to be sued, it does not thereby necessarily consent to an unrestrained execution
against it. Tersely put, when the State waives its immunity, all it does, in effect, is to give the other party an
opportunity to prove, if it can, that the State has a liability.
BRIEF HISTORY OF PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
Treaty of Tordesillas
Malolos Convention
Revolutionary Government
Organic Act
Jones Law - Military
Philippine Convention - Civilian Government
Philippine Bill of 1902 - Philippine Assembly
Tydings Mcduffie Law - 1934, granted independence in 1944
Bell Law
Japanese
Plebiscite
Javellana vs. Executive Secretary - Proclamation 1102
1987 Constitution CRITICISMS
Capitalist
Nationalistic
Bicameralism - approve the constitution with reservation
DATES TO REMEMBER!
Feb 2, 1987: ratified by the People and took effect on that day
Dec. 10, 1898: Treaty of Paris
April 11, 1898: Spain Totally transferred PH to US
November 15, 1935: 1935 Constitution
January 17, 1973: 1973 Constitution
Feb. 25, 1986: Freedom Constitution except the power of the president
PRESIDENTIAL VS. PARLIAMENTARY
Ramos:
attempted to amend the constitution
1 of 100
Pedrosa: Sign an initiative

No enabling law to change the constitution by initiative
Initiative vs. Referendum
In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises administration and supervision of the process itself, akin to its
powers over the conduct of elections. These law-making powers belong to the people, hence the respondent
Commission cannot control or change the substance or the content of legislation. In the exercise of its authority, it may
(in fact it should have done so already) issue relevant and adequate guidelines and rules for the orderly exercise of
these people-power features of our Constitution.
Initiative Referendum
Definition Power of the People to propose Power of the legislation thru

amendments to the Constitution election called for the purpose
Power of the electorate to

approve or reject thru an election
called for the purpose
Initiative
INITIATIVE REFERENDUM ACT

To change the statute, you need 10%
To change the constitution, you need 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative
district must be represented by 3% of the registered voters
NB: Initiative on Constitution may only be exercised 5 years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and
only once every 5 years
SC: 1. No clear mechanism for that
2. If it is an amendment. Revision is different. 2 articles will be revised. Total revision of the structure of the
government.
ERAP
ARROYO
Case: ____________ vs. Bagatsing
Freedom of Speech
- Public Assembly
- Freedom Park
- Privately owed properties
LGC: if the LGC does not designate a freedom park then ALL public place can be used as such.
Q: Who can interpret the constitution?

A: Anyone.
SCs decision En Banc > part of the laws of the land
2 of 100
CONSTITUTION:
STATUTE: passed by Congress
PEOPLE: direct exercise of sovereignty
: indirect exercise: through their elected representatives
Conflict between the Constitution and the Statute: THE CONSTITUTION WILL PREVAIL
Executive and Administrative Bodies

- Provide Rules and Regulation: not a legislation
- What has not been delegated cannot be delegated
* RR: in order to implement the law
: although not laws, it has an effect of a law
- Not contrary to statute
- Not contrary to constitution
ORDINANCES are like RR

- Must not be offensive
LGU: functionaries of the executive branch
- President has limited power over the LGU
- President only exercises Supervision and Control
- Local Chief/ Sanggunian
GR: If it is not founded on a law, there are no ordinances to speak of.

XPN: Unless, there is an EXPRESS GRANT.
But, even there is NO EXPRESS GRANT:
- health
- promote general welfare
Even if they pass an ordinance, if such ordinance is contrary to a valid statute, the ordinance will be invalid.
PRESIDENT:
Treaties, if approved by 2/3 of senate becomes part of the laws of the land.
NB: Conflict between Treaty vs. Constitution
It depends:
- Constitution
- Depends on when it was signed
- If a treaty was signed first and then a statute follows, treaty is abrogated
INTERNATIONAL LAW (A. 2, S. 2) Incorporation Clause

The Philippine Renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
* rules of international law are given a STANDING EQUAL , not superior to national enactments.
* Where a treaty and a statute are on an equality, a new treaty prevails over an earlier statute, but it is also the case
that a new statue prevails over treaty.
Q: Do you need to be a member of the UN in order to follow the Internationally accepted laws/ principles?
A: Not necessarily. Jus Cogens: universally accepted rights.
Treaties, Conventions
- pass the law to enable
Statute vs. Jurisprudence
- Constitution is what the SC says it is
Interpret it as a whole
- reconcile it with other provisions
LIBERALLY INTERPRETED (BBC)
3 of 100
- BROAD
- BASIC
- COMPREHENSIVE
GIVEN UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION

Constitution is Dynamic
- to meet new conditions
- must be broad
- for the changes in time
*Due process clause not defined in the Constitution
Constitution: Prospective rather than retrospective
In case of Doubt, provisions are self-execution

2 types
1. Self-executing: Those couched in the NEGATIVE
2. Non Self-executing:
- needs to have an enacting statue
- I.e. right to health, not all enjoys discount
PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. Constitution of Liberty - series of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political right of the
citizens and imposing limitations on the power of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of those
rights.
2. Constitution of Government - provides for a structure and system of government; refers to the provisions
outlining the organization of the government, enumerating its powers, laying down certain rules relative to its
administration and defining the electorate.
3. Constitution of Sovereignty - pointing out the modes or procedure in accordance with which formal changes in
the Constitution may be made
PREAMLE
We, The SOVEREIGN FILIPINO PEOPLE, IMPLORING THE AID OF ALMIGHTY GOD, IN ORDER TO BUILD A
JUST AND HUMANE SOCIETY AND ESTABLISH A GOVERNMENT THAT SHALL EMBODY OUR IDEALS AND
ASPIRATIONS, PROMOTE THE COMMON GOOD, CONSERVE AND DEVELOP OUR PATRIMONY, AND SECURE TO
OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY THE BLESSINGS OF INDEPENDENCE AND DEMOCRACY UNDER THE RULE OF
LAW AND A REGIME OF TRUTH, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, LOVE, EQUALITY, AND PEACE, DO ORDAIN AND
PROMULGATE THIS CONSTITUTION.
- meaning: to walk before

- Part of the constitution, BUT NOT AN ESSENTIAL PART
- NOT a SOURCE of ANY RIGHT
- determine the origin and the author
- serves as a guid for making, administering, interpreting
FILIPINO PEOPLE : WE, the author, ordain and promulgate the constitution
* Liberty vs. Freedom

AMENDMENT AND REVISION
AMENDMENT REVISION
Isolated or piecemeal change merely by adding, deleting, or revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument altering the
reducing without altering the basic principle involved substantial entirety of the Constitution
4 of 100
adds, reduces, deletes WITOUT ALTERING the basic principles Alters the basic principles
involved
ONLY SPECIFIC provisions are changed
TWO PART TEST: PURPOSE: Determine whether the proposed change is an amendment or revision
1. QUALITATIVE TEST
- Whether the change is so extensive as to directly change the substance entirely
- The Number of provisions affected does not consider the degree of the change
2. QUALITATIVE TEST
- Whether the change will accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan
as to amount to a revision.
CONSTITUENT VS. LEGISLATIVE POWER

Case Law: Imbong v. Ferrer
Competence of Congress acting as Constituent Assembly.While the authority to call a constitutional
convention is vested by the present Constitution solely and exclusively in Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly,
the power to enact the implementing details, which are now contained in Resolution Nos. 2 and 4 as well as in R.A.
No. 6132, does not exclusively pertain to Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly. Such implementing details are
matters within the competence of Congress in the exercise of its comprehensive legislative power, which power
encompasses all matters not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or removed by the Constitution from the
ambit of legislative action. And as long as such statutory details do not clash with any specific provision of the
Constitution, they are valid.
Discretion of Congress as Constituent Assembly to apportion delegates.Unlike in the apportionment of
representative districts, the Constitution does not expressly or impliedly require such apportionment of delegates to
the convention on the basis of population in each congressional district. Congress, sitting as a Constituent Assembly,
may constitutionally allocate one delegate for each congressional district or for each province, for reasons of economy
and to avoid having an unwieldy convention.
STEPRS IN THE AMENDATORY PROCESS:

(a) Proposal
(i) Congress, a vote of 3/4 of all its members
No preparatory resolution is needed before the Congress can propose
amendments as it is
(ii) CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
- 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress. Or by a majority vote of all the
members of Congress with the question of whether or not to call a Convention to be resolved by the people
in the plebiscite.
3 theories or position of a constitutional convention vis-a-vis the regular departments of the Government.
1. Theory of Conventional Sovereign

2. Convention is inferior to the other departments
3. Independent of and co-equal to the other departments
(iii) PEOPLE, thru the power of initiative

- A petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters
- Of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein
LIMITATION: No amendment in this manner shall be authorized within 5 years following the ratification of the
Constitution nor more often than once every five years thereafter.
Initiative Referendum
5 of 100
Power of the People to propose amendments to the The power of the legislation thru an election called for
constitution or to propose and enact regulation thru an the purpose
election called for that purpose
1. Initiative on the constitution 1. Referendum on Statutes

2. Initiative on statutes 2. Referendum on Local Law
3. Initiative on local regulations
NATIONAL TERRITORY:
Fixed portion of the surface of the Earth inhabited by the people as the state. As an element of a Stat, it is an area
over which a state has effective control
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
NATIONAL TERRITORY
- NOT an essential part
- need to know the history
1. Treaty of Paris: Philippine Islands
2. Treaty of Washington
3. Treaty of Great Britain
4. Tydings Mcduffie Law
PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO
ARCHIPELAGO
- Islands and water
- City State: SG. Vatican
- Many Islands
- more beneficial to an archipelagic state: a body of water studded with islands
- that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of Paris, as amended by the Treaty of
Washington and the Treaty with Great Britain.
UNCLOS
- GROUP of islands including parts of islands, interconnecting water and other natural features which are closely
interrelated with each other.
- "archipelago" means a group of islands, including parts of islands, interconnecting waters and other natural features
which are so closely interrelated that such islands, waters and other natural features form an intrinsic geographical,
economic and political entity, or which historically have been regarded as such.
Islands
Waters
And other territory over which the Philippine has jurisdiction
All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction includes any territory that presently
belongs or might in the future belong to the Philippines through any of the accepted international modes of acquiring
territory.
1935 historic rights and legal title
TERERSTRIAL
FLUVIAL
AERIAL
6 of 100
24 200
12 NAUTICAL NAUTICAL
3 MILES NAUTICAL MILES MILES
MILES
TERRITORIAL CONTIGUOUS EXCLUSIVE

SEABED ZONE ECONOMIC ZONE
SEAS
CONTINENTAL SHELF
HIGH SEAS: more than

SUBSOIL 200 NAUTICAL MILES
CONTIGUOUS ZONE
1. Sanitation, from the baseline up to 24 nautical miles
2. Immigration Laws
3. Custom Duties Law
4. Fiscal Laws
* Not part of the territory of the state
EEZ
- Right to explore and exploit to the exclusion of all other states.
ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
- Internal Water: Around Between and Connecting
- Straight Baseline Method
- Outermost islands
- Outermost points (baseline 12 nautical miles)
- Approved by the UNCLOS- 9:1
REGIME OF ISLANDS
Foreign ships may pass thru Internal waters

RIGHT OF INNOCENT PASSAGE
- continuous and speedy
- any foreign (commercial ship) which does not carry any toxins, armaments, weapons
Archipelagic State may designate SEA LANES or AIR LANES - DOCTRINE OF ARCHIPELAGIC SEA LANES
It is the right of foreign ships and aircraft to have continuous, expeditious and unobstructed passage in sea
lanes and air routes through or over the archipelagic waters and the adjacent territorial sea of the archipelagic
state, in transit between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone. All ships and aircraft are
entitled to the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage. (Magallona, 2005; Article 53[1] in relation with Article
53[3], UNCLOS)
Piracy
Genocide
Terrorism
Human Trafficking
Certain rights: Rts against torture
Jus cogens: universally accepted
7 of 100
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Q: Are the provisions in Article II self-executing?
A: No. By its very title, Article II of the Constitution is a declaration of principles and state policies. However,
principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They
are used by the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of judicial review, and by the legislature in its
enactment of laws. (Tondo Medical v. CA, G.R. No. 167324, July 17, 2007)
PRINCIPLES: Philosophies of a nation shared by person in that state
POLICIES: Acts in order to attain the ideals and aspirations
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES: ARE MERE DECLARATION
you need enabling laws
couched in general terms.
UNLESS declared by the SC as self-enabling laws.
if the provisions the constitution are detailed enough not to require _________?
PURPOSE:
1. Declaration
2. Guide to all departments of the government
DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE
DEMOCRATIC: Government, of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Most important element of a state: PEOPLE
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY: election to choose their representative
REPUBLICAN: Representative Salus Populi est suprema lex

It is a state wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by representatives
chosen by the people. (Dissenting Opinion of J. Puno, G.R. No. 148334, January 21, 2004 and Bernas Primer,
2006 Edition) he following are the manifestations of Republicanism:
1. Ours is a government of laws and not of men.
2. Rule of Majority (Plurality in elections)
3. Accountability of public officials
4. Bill of Rights
5. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws
6. Separation of powers
SOVEREIGNTY
8 of 100
1. DIRECTLY: suffrage. By conserted activities.

2. INDIRECTLY: people chooses their REPRESENTATIVE.
1. POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY: Values, Common

2. LEGAL SOVEREINTY: command and demand obedience.
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2.
The Philippine renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, and amity
with all nations.
INCORPORATION CLAUSE:
only the generally the accpted principles
rules of international law are given a STANDING EQUAL, NOT SUPERIOR, to national enactments
Municipal Law must prevail
Renounces war as an instrument of national Policy
Q: Does the Philippines renounce defensive war?
A: No, because it is duty bound to defend its citizens. Under the Constitution, the prime duty of the government is to
serve and protect the people.
Only a STATE OF WAR: Power is vested in the Congress
Q: What is the Doctrine of Auto-limitation?
A: It is the doctrine where the Philippines adhere to principles of international law as a limitation to the exercise of its
sovereignty.
Note: The fact that the international law has been made part of the law of the land does not by any means imply the
primacy of international law over national law in the municipal sphere. (Philip Morris, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 91332, July
16, 1993)
Civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector
of the people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the State and the Integrity of the national
territory.
Q: What is meant by the principle of Civilian Supremacy?

A: The civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military.
MILITARY
Protector of the People and the State
Territorial Sovereignty
Put Military Under Civilian

President is installed as the HIGHEST CIVILIAN AUTHORITY, as commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the
Philippines.
Q: When is Military supreme over civilian?

A: None. at all times . Even during war
Q: Is a President a Military Officer?

A: No.
Q: Why is a Military not a valid government?

A: Not democratic.
Rationale: In 1935 and 1973: Abuse of power during Martial Law.
9 of 100
The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The Government may call upon the people to
defend the State and, in the fulfillment thereof, all citizens may be required, under conditions provided by law, to
render personal military, or civil service.
Q: Can a person avoid the rendition of military services to defend the State?
A: No. One cannot avoid compulsory military service by invoking ones religious convictions or by saying that he has a
sick father and several brothers and sisters to support. Accordingly, the duty of government to defend the State cannot
be performed except through an army. To leave the organization of an army to the will of the citizens would be to
make this duty to the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein. The
right of the Government to require compulsory military service is a consequence of its duty to defend the State and is
reciprocal with its duty to defend the life, liberty, and property of the citizen. (People v. Zosa, G.R. No. L-45892-93,
July 13, 1938).
duty of the Citizen: Owe allegiance to the state. Defend the State.
The maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property and the promotion of the general
welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy.
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
Church: any religion or belief.

The Staet shall not interfere with purely Church affairs.
It is a ONE WAY prohibition
Q: Why does the State cannot prohibit the Church to meddle with purely State matters?
A: The members of the Church are members of the State.
The State can only discourage them from interfering in State Affairs.
I.e. by exempting them from tax -
1.Churches, parsonages, etc. actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes shall be exempt from
taxation. (Article VI, Section 28[3]);
2. When priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or any penal.
3. Optional religious instruction for public elementary and high school students (Article XIV, Section 3 [3]);
4. Filipino ownership requirement for education institutions, except those established by religious groups and mission
boards (Article XIV, Section 4 [2]).
History of S. 6. 1. RT TO
FREE BELIEVE
Articcle III, S. 5. (ABSOLUTE)
EXERCISE
CLAUSE
2. RT TO ACT IN
ACCORANCE
NON-
ESTABLIS
HMENT OF
RELIGION
I.E. Belief: Killing is good. To act on such Belief: Kill. here, the State limits the act in
accordance to such act in accordance to such belief.
10 of 100
The State must have COMPELLING INTEREST aligned with CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
(1) Act is allowed by the religion?

(2) Church or religion is sincere in their belief?
The burden of proof shifts to the State that there was a State Compelling Interest.
Case Law: Escritor v. Estrada
NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
1. NO LAW shall be passed prohibiting one religion
2. No Law shall be made for the purpose of non-establishment of ALL religion
3. No Law shall be made which prefers one religion over another.
Case Law: Aglipay v. Ruiz

- Not a purely church activity
- Only incidental to the secular purpose
- Public road is available to everyone
- The only purpose in issuing and selling the stamps was "to advertise the Philippines and attract more tourists to this
country." The officials concerned merely took advantage of an event considered of international importance "to give
publicity to the Philippines and its people." The stamps as actually designed and printed (Exhibit 2), instead of showing
a Catholic Church chalice as originally planned, contains a map of the Philippines and the location of the City of
Manila, and an inscription as follows: "Seat XXXIII International Eucharistic Congress, Feb. 3-7, 1937." What is
emphasized is not the Eucharistic Congress itself but Manila, the capital of the Philippines, as the seat of that congress.
- What is guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration. Religious freedom, however, as
a constitutional mandate is not inhibition of profound reverence for religion and is not a denial of its influence in
human affairs. Religion as a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his Creator is
recognized. And, in so far as it instills into the minds the purest principles of morality, its influence is deeply felt and
highly appreciated.
-
Case Law: Pami v. Teleron

- Priest
- Religious Test: In ordr to exercise the civil and political rights should not be
- Decision did not have majority votes.
- Sec. 2175 of Revised Administrative Code prohibiting ecclesiastics from holding public office is unconstitutional;
Reasons; Ban in Sec. 2175 already superseded by the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions on provision or non-religious test for
exercise of civil or political rights.
- On the constitutional dimension given motu proprio to the case in the main opinion of Mr. Justice Fernando, by way of
constitutional objectives to the continuing force and effectivity of Section 2175 as far as ecclesiastics are concerned. I
concur with the main opinion, concurred in by five other members of the Court, viz, Justices Muoz Palma, Concepcion
Jr., Santos, Fernandez and Guerrero that the archaic Administrative Code provision declaring ecclesiastics ineligible for
election or appointment to a municipal office is inconsistent with and violative of the religious freedom guaranteed by
the 1935 Constitution and that to so bar them from office is to impose a religious test in violation of the Constitutional
mandate that No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Case Law: Gerona v.s Secretary of Education

SC: The flag is not an image but a symbol of the Republic of the Philippines, an emblem of national sovereignty, of
national unity and cohesion and of freedom and liberty which it and the Constitution guarantee and protect. Under a
system of complete separation of church and state in the government, the flag is utterly devoid of any religious
significance. Saluting the flag does not involve any religious ceremony. The flag salute is no more a religious ceremony
than the taking of an oath of office by a public official or by a candidate for admission to the bar.
In requiring school pupils to participate in the flag salute, the State thru the Secretary of Education is not imposing a
religion or religious belief or a religious test on said students. It is merely enforcing a non-discriminatory school
regulation applicable to all alike whether Christian, Moslem, Protestant or Jehovah's Witness. The State is merely
carrying out the duty imposed upon it by the Constitution which charges it with supervision over and regulation of all
educational institutions, to establish and maintain a complete and adequate system of public education, and see to it
that all schools aim to develop, among other things, civic conscience and teach the duties of citizenship.
11 of 100
The children of Jehovah Witnesses cannot be exempted from participation in the flag ceremony. They have no valid right
to such exemption. Moreover, exemption to the requirement will disrupt school discipline and demoralize the rest of the
school population which by far constitutes the great majority.
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH NON- DISCRIMINATORY LAWS NOT A PART OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.The freedom of
religious belief guaranteed by the Constitution does not and cannot mean exemption from or non-compliance with
reasonable and nondiscriminatory laws, rules and regulations promulgated by competent authority.
Case Law: Soriano v. MTRCB
Petitioner has not been denied the equal protection of the law as the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) ministers he criticized are not
facing any administrative charges. Petitioners position does not persuade. The equal protection clause demands that all
persons subject to legislation should be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions both in the privileges
conferred and liabilities imposed. It guards against undue favor and individual privilege as well as hostile
discrimination. Surely, petitioner cannot, under the premises, place himself in the same shoes as the INC ministers, who, for
one, are not facing administrative complaints before the MTRCB. For another, he offers no proof that the said ministers, in
their TV programs, use language similar to that which he used in his own, necessitating the MTRCBs disciplinary action. If
the immediate result of the preventive suspension order is that petitioner remains temporarily gagged and is unable to
answer his critics, this does not become a deprivation of the equal protection guarantee. The Court need not belabor the
fact that the circumstances of petitioner, as host of Ang Dating Daan, on one hand, and the INC ministers, as hosts of Ang
Tamang Daan, on the other, are, within the purview of this case, simply too different to even consider whether or not there
is a prima facie indication of oppressive inequality.
Plain and simple insults to another person cannot be elevated to the status of a religious speech.There is nothing in
petitioners statements subject of the complaints expressing any particular religious belief, nothing furthering his avowed
evangelical mission. The fact that he came out with his statements in a televised bible exposition program does not
automatically accord them the character of a religious discourse. Plain and simple insults directed at another person cannot
be elevated to the status of religious speech. Even petitioners attempts to place his words in context show that he was
moved by anger and the need to seek retribution, not by any religious conviction. His claim, assuming its veracity, that
some INC ministers distorted his statements respecting amounts Ang Dating Daan owed to a TV station does not convert the
foul language used in retaliation as religious speech. We cannot accept that petitioner made his statements in defense of his
reputation and religion, as they constitute no intelligible defense or refutation of the alleged lies being spread by a rival
religious group. They simply illustrate that petitioner had descended to the level of name- calling and foul-language
discourse. Petitioner could have chosen to contradict and disprove his detractors, but opted for the low road.
Same; Same; Same; A TV program rated G or for general viewership reaches adults and children alike. What may not
be obscene speech to adults may be considered obscene for children.A cursory examination of the utterances complained of
and the circumstances of the case reveal that to an average adult, the utterances Gago ka talaga x x x, masahol ka pa sa
putang babae x x x. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang
itaas, o di ba! may not constitute obscene but merely indecent utterances. They can be viewed as figures of speech or
merely a play on words. In the context they were used, they may not appeal to the prurient interests of an adult. The
problem with the challenged statements is that they were uttered in a TV program that is rated G or for general
viewership, and in a time slot that would likely reach even the eyes and ears of children.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
- usually arises when it involves public funds
Conditions for not violating freedom of religion

(1) Law must be a legislative secular purpose
(2) Favor is only INCIDENTAL purpose must not have a primary effect of advancing a religion
(3) No excessive entanglement b/n the state and the church
CASE? Agricultural land, the material point is _______ the owner of the land
SC: Cannot decide on non-justiciable question affecting the dogma of the religion
Section 7: The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In relation with other states the paramount
consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-
determination.
12 of 100
National Sovereignty
Territorial Integrity
National Interest
Rt to self-determination
FOREIGN POLICIES?
- President
- Congress in coordination with the President
Section 8. The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from
nuclear weapon in its territory.
Nuclear Weapons:
Why we should not have a nuclear weapon?
2 Schools of thought
1. Cannot have nuclear weapon
2. Can have. provided that it is consistent with national interest
Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and
independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social
services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality life for all.
Whether or not it may be fulfilled, remains to be seen in the laws
Section 10. The State Shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
Social Justice:
- The State intervenes in private contractual set-ups in order to make those who have less in life more in law.
ECONOMIST VIEW
Command Economy
- all transactions are controlled by the State
Liberalism
- State does not interfere
- Liberal democratic system
Humanization of the laws

- So that justice may at least be approximated
Use of laws
Constitutional means
Extra-constitutional: Inherent Powers
Common tao
Protection of rt of an individual v. the State
Sec. 12. The Stae recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and
the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
Basic
Social
Autonomous
Sanctity of family life
Estrada v. Escritor: BENEVOLENT ACCOMODATION
13 of 100
ABORTION: Removed the primarily abortifacient
Case Law: Ro v. Wade?
Natural and Primary duty of the parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
moral characters shall receive the support of the Government.
State: SUPPORTS
The State has the right to step into the shoes of the parents when parents refused to perform their duty
Natural and Primary right belongs to the parents

Parens Patriae: State acting as parent
Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism,
and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
Section 14. The State recognizes the role of women 0n nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality
before the law of women and men
Sec. 15. The Stae shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill health consciousness among
them.
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with
the rhythm and harmony of nature.
Sec. 17.
Sec. 18
Sec. 19
Sec. 20 - 25: Read code!!
LOCAL AUTONOMY
- The State shall ensure the local autonomy of local governments
- The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy
DECENTRALIZATION: does not make the local government sovereign within the State on an imperium in imperio
Corporation: An artificial being created by operation of law, having the right of succession and the powers, attributes
and properties expressly authorized by law or incident to its existence
CLASSIFICATION OF CORPORATIONS ACCORDING TO PURPOSE:

(a) public: organized for the government of a portion of the state
(b) Private: Formed for some purpose, benefit, aim or end
(c) Quasi-public: a private corporation that renders public service or supplies public want
If created by the State as its own agency to help the State in carrying out its governmental functions, then it is
public, otherwise it is private.
*The State shall ensure autonomy of Local Government

Misnomer
Are just agencies of the government
Executive branch
Implement the Law
- Constitution
- Law In the form of ordinances
14 of 100
- Statute
State has dual functions
LGU
(1)
(2)
Being an entity of the state, it cannot be sued without its consent
BUT, the LGU can give its consent
PRIVATE CAPACITY
- Enter into contracts
- agent of their inhabitants
- can sue and be sued
- can own private property
- patrimonial property
- The State cannot take it
- Suability and Liability: expropriation
Technical and Political Jurisdiction

- Provinces
- Cities
- Municipalities
- Autonomous Regions
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Under the president, or the chief executive
Every agency is under the power of control and supervision
**BUT, in LGU, MERE GENERAL SUPERVISION

If they do not want to reverse?
Q: Who has power of Control?
A: Congress
Q: Why is the power of the Executive Branch limited to Supervision?

A:
Unitary not Federal

One Central Government
Thru legislative enactment : Automatic allotment

Congress can create an LGU Art. X, S. 1. There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and
in the Cordilleras consisting of provinces, cities, municipalities, and geographical areas sharing common and
distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and social structures, and other relevant characteristics
within the framework of this Constitution and the national sovereignty as well as territorial integrity of the
Republic of the Philippines.
Unlike a federal state, the governor is a local chief executive
Imperium et imperio
2 Autonomous region are not a State although granted with a greater scope of powers
Autonomous regions:
- Administrative
- Certain powers are distributed so that they can be more sufficient and self-reliant.
ADMININSTRATIVE AUTONOMY:
Under the 1987 Constitution, it simply means decentralization; it does not make the local governments
sovereign within the state or an imperium in imperio. (Basco v. PAGCOR, G.R. 91649, May 14, 1991)
15 of 100
- Autonomy has 2 kinds of Decentralization

(1) Administration
(2) Power
In order to designate: Devolution

Deconcentration
Q: Define devolution with respect to local government units.
A: The act by which the national government confers power and authority upon the various local government units to
perform specific functions and responsibilities.
In order to encourage autonomy:

(1) exploit the resources
(2) Given in the shape in the funds of the government budget
(3) Taxing powers must be based on law
ARMM/ CAR: Administrative

- The Congress must pass a law and a plebiscite approving them
ARMM only!
CAR: not approved by other component provinces (only Ifugao approved)
IN ORDER TO CREATE AN LGU

Income
Land Area
Population
Except for Barangay which does not require a land area
16 of 100
Special Metropolitan Political Subdivision (SMPS)

- Not Territorial
- Purpose: For coordination
MMDA : Mere administrative office under the office of the President
Abolishing: Plebiscite needed

When?
Population is below the required number
Case Law: Pelaex v. Auditor General
Gerry Mandering: Gerrymandering is the formation of one legislative district out of separate territories for the
purpose of favoring a candidate or a party. It is not allowed because the Constitution provides that each district
shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory (Bernas, Reviewer in Philippine
Constitution, p. 186)
2 Views:
(1) Declare unconstitutional
(2) Unconstitutionall
- but inured to the benefit of the Public
- Operative Fact Doctrine
LGU:
(1) is validy created: de Jure
- functioned as such
- cannot be sanctioned to any collateral attacks DIRECTLY
- quo warranto is not available
17 of 100
(2) De Facto: there is colorable compliance

- Can be attacked directly
ABSOLUTE NULLITY
Directly or collaterally
Amendment #6: Marcos

Cory under Revolutionary Government
Validly created LGU
Transforming into a different class: Law needed
Congress delegated power in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan and Panglungsod to create Barangay.
Sec. 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties
as may be defined by law
Sec. 27 The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective
measures against graft and corruption
Elective official term limits.
Sec. 28. Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full
public disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest.
Transparency NOT ABSOLUTE

XPN: Extradition Proceedings in Court
Inherent Powers - Not found in the Constitution

- enormous, if unchecked.
In order to avoid abuse
States power
Police Power GENERAL WELFARE does not feel the return/ effect LIFE
right away (altruistic feeling)
Eminent Domain PUBLIC USE just compensation LIBERTY
Taxation RAISE FUNDS PROPERTY
SIMILARITIES: (5) INIP-L
1. They are inherent in the State and may be exercised by it without need of express constitutional grant.
2. They are not only necessary but indispensable. The State cannot continue or be effective unless it is able to
exercise them.
3. They are methods by which the State interferes with private rights.
18 of 100
4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for the private rights interfered with.
5. They are exercised primarily by the legislature.
COMMON LIMITATIONS:
How do these powers differ from one another?
1. May not be exercised arbitrarily to the prejudice of the Bill of Rights
2. Subject at all times to the limitations and requirements of the Constitution and may in proper cases be
annulled by the courts, i.e. when there is grave abuse of discretion.
RIGHTS SOURCES:
1. Natural Right
God- given, sovereign power which grants.
2. Constitutional Right
Rt granted by the Constitution
rt guaranteed
I.e. life, liberty, property
Not to grant but guarantee from abuse
Limit the power of the state
Whole Bill of rights: LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF THE STATE
not only define but SETS PARAMETERS
3. STATUTORY RIGHTS
Legislative Acts
i.e. discounts senior citizens
Can be a statutory rt and also a constitutional rt. = rt to suffrage
Statutory rts which are also natural rts I.e. rt to privacy:
Anti- wiretapping law
Trespass to dwelling
19 of 100
by the nature
1. CIVIL RIGHTS
- rts of citizens
2. POLITICAL RIGHTS
- in participation in the governance of the State
- International Law : FIRST GENERATION RTS : NEGATIVE RTS OF THE STATE
- Later expanded to SOCIO-ECONOMIC - SECOND GENRATION: POSITIVE RTS
ECONOMIC RTS v. CULTURAL
- Rt to work - culture and traditions
- Rt to education
- rt to engage in a profession
Art. III: Civil and Political Rts: SELF- ENABLING
Art. XIII and XIV: Social and Economic Rts: NEED ENABLING LAWS
INTERNATIONAL LAW
- THIRD GENERATION
- Solidary rights
- Rt to have world peace
- clean and safe environment
- intergenerational
POLICE POWER
A: Police power easily outpaces the other two powers. It regulates not only property, but also the liberty of persons.
Police power is considered the most pervasive, the least limitable, and the most demanding of the three powers. It may
be exercised as long as the activity or property sought to be regulated has some relevance to the public welfare.
(Gerochi v. Department of Energy, G. R. 159796, July 17, 2007)
ASPECTS OF P.P. (HiM-SW)
20 of 100
1. Public health
2. Public morals
3. Public safety
4. Public welfare
Q: What are the tests to determine the validity of a police measure?
1. Lawful subject The interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require the
exercise of the police power
2. Lawful means The means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals
Q: Why do we need to identify?
A: Bec. there is a hierarchy of rts LIFE AND LIBERTY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROPERTY
If the State Deprives you of your rt, the burden is on the state to prove that there was due process.
DUE PROCESS
- No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
Due process: NO DEFINITE meaning, a law which hears before it condemns
Rationale: A precise definition of DP might prove constricting and prevent the judiciary from adjusting to its
circumstances of a particular cases and to the ever changing conditions of society
: Dynamic, resilient, adaptable, enlarges the rts of the individual
Person: protect all persons
a. Natural: 1. Citizens 2. aliens once an alien is admitted, he cannot be deprived of life without due process of law
b. Artificial Persons (Corporations, Partneships) ONLY PROPERTY
Rationale: Life and liberty of the artificial person as a creature of law, are derived from and therefore subject to
legislative control
Deprivation: DENIAL TO rt to life, liberty or property
2 Kinds
SUBSTATIVE
PROCEDURAL
21 of 100
SUBSTANTIVE: The law in itself must be reasonable. Prohibits arbitrary laws.
Q: How do you know that the law is reasonable?
A: There must be a reasonable connection (test) > the purpose of the law and the means employed must be
VALID
Fajardo Case distinguished from Churchill vs. _________
SC: Not purely for aesthetics
2 ways to limit
regulate prohibit
lawful act No Yes
unlawful act Yes No
Drugs: Prohibited
Regulated
Allowed
Massage parlor is not per se illegal: Regulated
Public Morals
Public Safetly
* There must be a reasonable connection
* Life and Liberty: apply the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE
Degree of the Proximity of the

Danger Danger
Q: Is there a Clear and Present danger of a _____________?
22 of 100
A: There must be a law to exercise police power
- law in itself/ on its face must be reasonable
- Reasonable: NOT ARBITRARY or OPPRESSIVE/ CONFISCATORY
EMPIRICAL BASIS (observation)
Medical Findings
EMSS
Scientifc
Statistical
MARCOS:
During the martial law where opposition were arrested: they use STRONG TENDENCY TEST
strong tendency to become dangerous
STRONG TENDENCY TEST
- Who determines WON a person has a dangerous tendency?
- Marcos, Secretary, Police Officer (arbitrary)
Q: What would be the criteria?
A: No particular criteria. it is used to curtail civil liberties
ARROYO: attempts to curtail liberties
Closure of newspaper houses
Arrest without warrant
Used in freedom of speech : once the speech has been given, you do not know the extent of the magnittude
Case: Ople v. Torres
SC declared that it is invalid
Police power is exercised, not vested with the president
the EO not specify if for any purpose
Even if it is made for_________
23 of 100
1.
2. Data to be used will not come from the private person. The government already possess the data.
FACIAL CHALLENGE: on its face, the law on itself is unreasonable
1. VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS
- violation of due-process
- Lacks comprehensive standards
- People of common intelligence must guess as to implications
- No fair notice of the misconduct
- There would be undue delegation of power
- Arbitrary exercise of the law
*NB: NOT ALL STATUTES OR LAW COUCHED IN GENERAL OR ORDINARY TERMS ARE VOID
- If the law states the purposes, but you cannot understand, then it is an invalid purpose.
1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice
of what conduct to avoid
2. It leaves law enforcers an unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions (People v. de la Piedra,
G.R. No. 128777, Jan. 24, 2001)
2. OVERBREATH DOCTRINE
A: 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.
- If the Law is constitutional as it prohibits unprotected speech but this substantive about of protected speech is
retained.
- Leads to a chilling effect
- (Reno v. ACL Civil Courts - obscenity law. Minors prohibited to access
- on its face it is invalid
- Normally used in freedom of speech cases
- It MUST BE VOID IN ALL ASPECTS
Note: It is an analytical tool developed for testing on their face statutes in free speech cases. Claims of facial over
breadth are entertained in cases involving statutes which, by their terms, seek to regulate only spoken words and
again, that overbreadth claims, if entertained at all, have been curtailed when invoked against ordinary criminal laws
that are sought to be applied to protected conduct.
24 of 100
XPN to the use of facial challenge: LOCUS STANDI
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
*IF THERE is a restriction, you are affected: TRANSCENDENTAL IMPORTANCE: XPN to locus standi
Conjunctive: Unless it applies to you
If the law limits your rights
NEED FOR PUBLICATION
Required
Official Gazette
For Penal Regulation
VFV
cannot be used UNLESS it
OBD can be applied to him
Case Law: Estrada v. SB
SC: the law is not vague
Once published:
Executive Branch - makes R & R to implement the law
It has the force and effect of laws
But they are SUBORDINATE to the laws
If statues are published, R&R are also required to be published
LGU also issue ordinances
Sangguian
Not laws: however it has the force and effect of laws
Not contrary to laws
25 of 100
Must be published
Rules: There are offices, which only applies to them
Internal R & R of the office need not be published -XPN: those internal rules which generally affects the
public
LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE JUDICIARY
make laws implement laws decide on the validity of laws
- publication required In the exercise of: Notice and Hearing
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
R&R: Published
UNLESS: Internal Rules
XPT: if it affects the public
In the exercise of:
QUASI - JUDICIAL
N& H
When a rule applies X N &H
When it singles out: N&H to that

person
Powers of State vs. Rights of a Person
BALANCING OF INTEREST
- applies only in cases of Rt v. Rt.
- use hierarchy of rts
- Doctrine of Preferred Freedom
Examples:
1. Contract: 1 year to pay
A X
vs.
A sued X
A: rt to property
26 of 100
X: rt against involuntary servittude
= Rt of X will prevail. Liberty rt.
2. A employee. X er. Condn of employment: A will not join a union. However, after being hired A joined a union.
X A
vs.
A: rt to property
X: rt to association
3. A employee. X er. Condn of employment: A will JOIN a union. However, after BEING EMPLOYED A DISMEMBERED
IN THE UNION (CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT)
A X
vs.
A: rt to property
X: rt NOT TO JOIN: Not contrary to public policy
*NB: EVEN liberty rights can be limited by the State
4. A employee. X er. Condn of employment: A will JOIN a union. However, after BEING EMPLOYED A did not join the
union because of HIS RELIGION. A was dismissed
A X
vs.
A: rt to property
X: rt Not to join and Rt to religion
= Rt of X will prevail. Rt to religion is higher.
27 of 100
Case Law: Victoriano v. ____
Religion v. Mere Property: religon is higher
State Compelling Interest
5. SM hired INC members (sm knew they are not allowed to become members of any association)
INC made a union (Where it is not allowed accdg to their doctrines)
vs.
SM INC
SC: separation of the Church and the State.
Strict Scrutiny test:
Piatco Case
Strict scrutiny the focus is on the presence of compelling, rather than substantial governmental interest and
on the absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest (Separate opinion of Justice Mendoza in
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965,
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
(JUDICIAL PROCEDURE) (IJ2N)
1. An impartial and disinterested court clothed by law with authority to hear and determine the matter before
it.
Note: Test of impartiality is whether the judges intervention tends to prevent the proper presentation of the
case or the ascertainment of the truth.
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the defendant or the property which is the subject matter of the
proceeding
3. Notice and opportunity to be heard be given the defendant
4. Judgment to be rendered after lawful hearing, clearly explained as to the factual and legal bases (Art. VII,
Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution)
R. 126: IMPARTIAL
1. Court: Clothed by Law with JUDICIAL POWER
JUDICIAL POWER: power to hear and determine matter before it.
: subject matter. Jurisdiction over subject matter
XPT the SC: Not granted by the legislative - CO-EQUAL BODY
: IT ACQUIRES ITS POWERS FROM THE CONSTITUTION
28 of 100
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER
Impartial
Granted by Law
Case: __________ v. Clave
JURISDICTION OVER THE PARTIES OF THE CASE
Acquired when the parties submit themselves to the court
JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE
CIVIL case: Payment of Filing fee
Defendant: Notice, Summons, Files an answer
ADMINISTRATIVE: DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
Expertise in their own fields
Chance to correct themselves
Avoid clogging of dockets
CRIMINAL:
1. Crime has been committed
2. Nature and Cause of accusation against him
3. Opportunity to be heard
a. there must be a hearing
b. given notice
He is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Accused: Arraignment, Subpoena
JUDGMENT MUST BE RENDERED AFTER A LAWFUL HEARING
1. Judgment
29 of 100
2. Hearing (Lawful)
PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY
- The judges decision has been affected by the barrage of publicity.
DOCTRINE OF PREJUDICIAL PUBLICITY
- there must be an allegation but also proof that the judge has actually been influenced by the barrage of publicity
- Webb v. De Leon
- Burden of Proof: to the one who alleges.
TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES
Arraignment: The accused must know the information
Rt to a competent and Independent Counsel
When the judge does not only ask for classificatory questions
Quasi- Judicial Function
Administrative
exercising quasi- judcial are not required to follow the ROC
Case: Ang Tibay v. CIR
7 Cardinal Rules of a Quasi- Judicial Body in the exercise of DP
1. Notice and Hearing, Chance to present evidence
2. Evidence must be substantial
3. Judgment must be based on the judges own individual consideration
4. Court must have something to support their decision
5. COurt must consider the evidence
6. Decision must consider the evidence
7. Parties must know the issue and reason for the decision
IN Labor:
30 of 100
Private Corporations are also required DP
- opportunity to be heard
- 2 notice rule
- DP by the Labor Code
Ateneo v. CA: DP is also required in schools
Gregorio Araneta v. ______
R & R: must be reasonable especially in the exercise of their constitutional rts.
XPT: a. if there is a disciplinary ground
b. failure to meet the academic standards of the school which must be REASONABLE
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
THRUST: EQUALITY
DIFFERENT KINDS:
1. PERSONAL EQUALITY
- all created by God is the same.
- synonymous to freedom
- equality of opportunities
When there is equality: ONLY THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED
: SUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCE OR DISTINCTION
Personal equality is synonymous to freedom
Legal equality
Sometimes the law allows the classification to:
Exercise POLICE POWER
Promote the GENERAL WELFARE
When they classify, there must be a law
31 of 100
Law to be valid there must be a reasonable classification
REQUISITES:
1. Classification must be based on substantial distinction
2. Must be germane to the purpose of the law
3. Must not be limited to existing or present conditions
4. Must apply equality to all members of the same class
Q: When substantial?
Case Law: Inchong v. Hernandez
Congress passed a law regulating trade of Chinese in the Philippines
Law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL bec. the law singled out Chinese
3rd requisite:
- Ormoc (Govt) passed a tax ordinance tax ordinance taxing ORMOC SUGAR CENTRAL for every sugar produce
SC: is invalid, violates equal protection. There was no valid distinction b/n them and other sugar refining
company
Law must apply equally to members of the same class which are similarly situated
PUBLIC TRANSPO (Common Carrier) - exercise extraordinary diligence
PRIVATE TRANSPO (License only) - must exercise the ordinary diligence of a good father of a family
Land Air Sea
There are laws which

would apply only to Land 33% 33%
I.e. ROAD SIGNS Land Sea
Air
33%
Classification is Okay, provided that they are applicable to the same class
32 of 100
I.e. TAXICAB OPERATORS
There is substantial distinction
1. for public comfort and convenience
2. taxicabs are easily destroyed
3. jeepneys and buses have regular route
Pase v. Drilon
- DOLE issued regulation prohibiting deployment of workers to certain countries
- To promote public safety and welfare
- Women only
- Substantial distinction: Gender
- They are the ones victimized
Case Law: Pp v. Hernandez
- a person committed rebellion
- means used was illegal
- shows lesser perversity of the accused
- there is only one offense
- Purpose: SOCIAL JUSTICE
Case Law: Pp v. Isnain
- took coconut
- purpose: public policy, protect coconut industry
- substantial distinction
- The constitutional guarantee requires the treatment alike, in the same place and under like circumstances and
conditions, of all persons subjected to state legislation. But a state, "as a part of its police power, may exercise a
large measure of discretion, in creating and defining criminal offenses, and may make classifications as to
persons amenable to punishment, so long as the classifications are reasonable.
33 of 100
Case Law: Chavez v. PCGG
- Marcoses will no longer be criminally liable
- Chavez questioned the constitutionality
- SC: Violation of the equal protection clause
- It cannot compromise that the suits can no longer be filed against them violation of separation of power
Case Law: Nido v. COMELEC
- all partisan should be given equal air time
- there is substantial distinction
1. Marcos is also the President of the Republic
2. It is not election, it is an amendment to the Constitution
PJA v. Prado
- officials in the govt enjoy free postage ranking price
- A law was passed removing certain postage priv. in the judiciary
- SC: decided in favor of the judiciary there is no violation of the equal protection clause.
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS
- No substantial distinction bec. they are doing the same job
Public Policy: Public Trust and Welfare
Public Official Go Directly to the SC
Public Office: Not a property right
: To the extent tha you have security of tenure
: Acquired vested right
Licenses: Privileged does not affect DP clause
34 of 100
continue to comply
However, the mere fact that _________
Case Law: Ermita vs. City of Manila
Public Morals
Rt of owners of hoted to property
Reasonable connection test
Purpose of the law
Means employed
Connection? Curbing prostitution
Public view (signing)
Minors
Cannot use or checkin mor than twice within 24 hours
Due process; Standards of legal infirmity. There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes
though a standard to which governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty
or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. The standard of due process which must exist both as a
procedural and as substantive requisite to free the challenged ordinance, or any governmental action for
that matter, from imputation of legal infirmity, is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason. obedience to
the dictates of justice. It would be an affront to reason to stigmatize an ordinance enacted precisely to meet
what a municipal lawmaking body considers an evil of rather serious pro portions as an arbitrary and
capricious exercise of authority. What should be deemed unreasonable and what would amount to an
abdication of the power to govern is inaction in the face of an admitted deterioration of the state of public
morals.
Same; Reasonableness of ordinance regulating hotels, etc. The provision in Ordinance No. 4760 of the City of
Manila, making it unlawful for the owner, manager, keeper or duly authorized representative of any hotel,
motel, lodging house, tavern, common inn or the like, to lease or rent any room or portion thereof more
than twice every 24 hours, with a proviso that in all cases full payment shall be charged, cannot be viewed
as a transgression against the command of due process. The prohibition is neither unreasonable nor
arbitrary, because there appears a correspondence between the undeniable existence of an undesirable
situation and the legislative attempt at correction. Moreover, every regulation of conduct amounts to
curtailment of liberty, which cannot be absolute.
Same; Public interest; Government interference.The policy of laissez faire has to some extent given way to the
assumption by the government of the right of intervention even in contractual relations affected with public
interest. If the liberty invoked were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the validity of
governmental acts is much more rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects at the most
rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory measures is wider.
Statutes; When statute is void because of ambiguity. What makes a statute susceptible to a charge that it is void on
its face for alleged vagueness or uncertainty is an enactment either forbidding or requiring the doing of an
act that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and diff er as to its application.
Paras v. dela Cruz
35 of 100
Promote public morals
Means: Unlawful? Prohibits?
City of Manila v. Laguio
SC: Invalidated the ordinance for phasing out the __________
: IN offering short time wash up; stay a while
Individual rts may be affected
A reasonable relation must exist between the purposes of the police measure and the means employed for its
accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the public interest, personal rights and those
pertaining to private property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded.
Equal protection requires that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
conferred and responsibilities imposed. Similar subjects, in other words, should not be treated
differently, so as to give undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against others. The guarantee
means that no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by
other persons or other classes in like circumstances. The equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the
protection of equal laws. It limits governmental discrimination. The equal protection clause extends to
artificial persons but only insofar as their property is concerned.
Requirements in order that Classification of the Subjects of Legislation may be Valid. Legislative bodies are
allowed to classify the subjects of legislation. If the classification is reasonable, the law may operate only
on some and not all of the people without violating the equal protection clause. The classification must,
as an indispensable requisite, not be arbitrary. To be valid, it must conform to the following
requirements: 1) It must be based on substantial distinctions; 2) It must be germane to the purposes of
the law; 3) It must not be limited to existing conditions only; 4) It must apply equally to all members of
the class.
White Light v. City of Manila
Due Process; The purpose of due process guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life,
liberty and property of individuals. The primary constitutional question that confronts us is one of due process,
as guaranteed under Section 1, Article III of the Constitution. Due process evades a precise definition. The purpose
of the guaranty is to prevent arbitrary governmental encroachment against the life, liberty and property of
individuals. The due process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation or seizure. Even
corporations and partnerships are protected by the guaranty insofar as their property is concerned.
Procedural due process refers to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty,
or property; Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due process clauseit inquires
whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.The due pro-
cess guaranty has traditionally been interpreted as imposing two related but distinct restrictions on government,
procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process refers to the procedures that
the government must follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Procedural due process
concerns itself with government action adhering to the established process when it makes an intrusion into the
private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice given to the level of formality of a hearing. If due process
were confined solely to its procedural aspects, there would arise absurd situation of envisioned by the due process
clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient justification for depriving a person of life, liberty, or
property.
36 of 100
The question of substantive due process, moreso than most other fields of law, has reflected dynamism in progressive legal
thought tied with the expanded acceptance of fundamental freedoms; The due process clause has acquired potency
because of the sophisticated methodology that has emerged to determine the proper metes and bounds for its
application.
Ang Tibay v. CIR
: May be
: Based on pleadings
Art. II, S. 2. The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unlawful seats
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issue except upon probabel cause to be determined personally by the judged after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Rt to be left alone
Rt to privacy: flows from rt to liberty
Q: When reasonable?
A: There must be a warrant. A warrant is an order of the court
To issue: Probable cause: Facts and circumstances which would lead a prudent man to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the place to be searched, the object are illegal per se, used in the commission of an
offense.
Only a judge can issue a warrant
In 1973 Const: any responsible officer
1987: Reverted back to the judge
Judicial Function.
Rationale: 1. evidence must be presented
2. Function of a judge
3. Administrative: Executing their functions
Determine personally by the judge
Proabable cause: based on FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
Mere conclusion of law
37 of 100
Thru searching questions
Lina v. Morales
Q: How?
A: After examination of the applicant
I.e. Police officer, witnesses he/she may produce, deposition, under oath or affirmation
According to a a very reliable source: NOT ALLOWED, the judge must conduct a searching questions
Prosecutor: probable cause for filing of information
Q: Can he rely on the report of the Prosecutor?
A: Yes. They also determine the probable cause of the report made by the prosecutor
Particular DESCRIPTION OF THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED
Violate
Personal Description
Does not indicate sufficient information as to the place and the Name
John Doe Warrant
PARTICULAR DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED
LIMITS their powre to search the place
Not a MAP!!
Fixtures: permanent
Brgy. Municipality; Province to limit the place ot be searched
Name of the owner
2 Witness Rule:
Items to be seized
38 of 100
Neutral persons
RIGHT TO PRIVACY: Personal Right. only exercised by the person himself
Legal occupant of the Place
Illegal Per se
Used in the commission of an Offense
Case: Stonehill v. Diokno
Not general warrant
Particular items to be seized
Same; General search warrants.Search warrants, issued upon applications stating that the natural and
juridical persons therein named had committed a violation of Central Bank laws, tariff and customs
laws, Tax Code and Revised Penal Code do not satisfy the constitutional requirements because no
specific offense had been alleged in said applications. It was impossible for the judges, who issued the
warrants, to have found the existence of probable cause, which presupposes the introduction of
competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts or committed
specific omissions in violation of a specific penal provision.
Same; Why general warrants are outlawed.General search warrants are outlawed because they place the
sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the
whims, caprice or passion of peace officers.
I.e.
Illegal Recruitment
engaged
No license to recruit
All connected to the act of recruiting
XPNS TO THE GR (WARRANT REQUIRED):
1. DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
Several ways
Use, selling, possession, etc
39 of 100
Punished differently
Can be place in one warrant
REQUIREMENT:
1. Special Law
2. Offenses are so interrelated that it consists of one genus or specie
Case: Pp. v. Salangguit
In issuing a search warrant, judges must comply strictly with the requirements of the
Constitution and the Rules of Criminal Procedureno presumption of regularity can be invoked in aid of the
process when an officer undertakes to justify its issuance.
The fact that there was no probable cause to support the application for the seizure of drug
paraphernalia does not warrant the conclusion that the search warrant is voidthis would be material only if drug
paraphernalia was in fact seized by the police.
Since the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals specifically with dangerous
drugs which are subsumed into prohibited and regulated drugs and defines and penalizes categories of
offenses which are closely related or which belong to the same class or species, one (1) search warrant may thus
be validly issued for the said violations of the Act.
Where the location of the accuseds house was made determinate by reference to the affidavit
supporting the warrant, and made part of the record, there can be no doubt that the warrant described the place
to be searched with sufficient particularity.
RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONALBLE SEARCHES
Directed to the State and its agents
Private persons
Police came across of the evidence
Civil actions
Case: Pp. v. Andre Martin
The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of ones person
from interference by government; it cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to
bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
40 of 100
Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not a
search that is prohibited by the constitution. the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the
reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by the Constitution.
Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search. Having observed that which s open,
where no tresspass has been committed in aid thereof, is not search (Chadwick v. State, 429 SW2d 135).
Where the contraband articles are identified without a trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there
is not the search that is prohibited by the constitution (US v. Lee 274 US 559., 71 L.Ed. 1202 [1927]; Ker
v. State of California 374 US 23, 10 L.Ed.2d. 726 [1963]; Moore v. State, 429 SW2d 122 [1968]).
That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals
finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. True, the liberties guaranteed by the
fundamental law of the land must always be subject to protection. But protection against whom?
Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship speech in the Bill of Rights answers the query which he himself
posed, as follows: First, the general reflections. The protection of fundamental liberties in the essence of
constitutional democracy. Protection against whom? Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights
governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between
individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare
some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.
: Zulueta v. : XPN to the rule
XPNS:
1. HOT PURSUIT
- PERSONAL knowledge based on probable cause of the facts and circumstances
- has just committed an offense
2. IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO
- 3 Stages: a. act
b. actually Offense
c. just committed
3. FUGITIVE FROM JUSTICE
tumakas
Case: Umil v. Ramos
41 of 100
Rebel
SC: Rebellion is a CONTINUING OFFENSE
An arrest without a warrant of arrest, under Section 5 paragraphs (a) and (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagranti delicto, viz., in the act
of committing an offense; or when an offense has just been committed and the person making the
arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it.
Petitioners had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense when apprehended so that their
arrests without a warrant were clearly justified.The record of the instant cases would show that the
persons in whose behalf these petitions for habeas corpus have been filed, had freshly committed or
were actually committing an offense, when apprehended, so that their arrests without a warrant were
clearly justified, and that they are, further, detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them
in court.
Atty. Bonglo: Objects:
1. OVert act of the commission of the offense
2. Favors the accued
3. Rebellion: Political offense
Question as to validity of the arrest: Motion to quash the warrant
Question asa to warrantless arrest: Motion for reinvestigation of the cause
Posting bail is NOT a waiver of the right to legalities.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Q: Exclusionary Rule: Food of the poisonous tree
Q: When search and seizure allowed?
A: Construed strictly against the State
Warrantless search and seizures
Q: Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest. At that time, Valeroso was sleeping. He was pulled out
of the room. The other police officers remained inside the room and ransacked the locked cabinet where
they found a firearm and ammunition. Is the warrantless search and seizure of the firearm and
ammunition justified as an incident to a lawful arrest?

A: No. The scope of the warrantless search is not without limitations. A valid arrest allows the seizure of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his
42 of 100
immediate control. The purpose of the exception is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by
the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from
destroying evidence within reach. In this case, search was made in the locked cabinet which cannot be
said to have been within Valeroso's immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of what
may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest. (Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164815,
Sept. 3, 2009)
1. Consent or waiver
2. Plain view Doctrine * A: Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that
view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced as evidence. Requisites for
the application of the doctrine are:

a. The law enforcer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion, or is in a position
from which he can view a particular area;
b. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent;
3. Moving vehicle
Q: Q: When may motorists and their vehicles passing though checkpoints be stopped and extensively
searched?
A: While, as a rule, motorists and their vehicles passing though checkpoints may only be subjected to a
routine inspection, vehicles may be stopped and extensively searched when there is probable cause which
justifies a reasonable belief among those at the checkpoints that either the motorist is a law offender or the
contents of the vehicle are or have been instruments of some offense. (People v. Vinecario, G.R. No. 141137,
Jan. 20, 2004)
4. Search incident to a lawful arrest

5. Airport/ Seaport
6. Emergency
7. Check point *
Yes, provided the checkpoint complies with the following requisites:
1.The establishment of checkpoint must be pronounced
2.It must be stationary, not roaming
3. The search must be limited to visual search and must not be an intrusive
search.
8. Stop and Frisk * It is a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. Probable cause is not required but a
genuine reason must exist in light of a police officers experience and surrounding conditions to warrant the
belief that the person detained has weapons concealed. (Malacat v. CA, G.R. No. 123595, Dec. 12, 1997)
NB: *Technically not Exceptions to warrantless search rule
In Flagrante Delicto: The person to be arrested has either committed, is actually committing, or is about to commit an
offense in the presence of the arresting officer
Note: Waiver is limited only to the arrest and does not extend to search made as an incident thereto, or to any
subsequent seizure of evidence found in the search. (People v. Peralta, G.R. 145176, March 30, 2004)
43 of 100
1. Security guard: Not authorized
XPN to the rule:
Lopez v. CTA
Collector of Internal Revenue
Manicurist
Substantial compliance
NOT THE DOCTRINE
Owner not present
2 witness rule: to witness the s/s
To make sure that the integrity is kept
Mark and Secure
A product of illegal search
Inadmissible in any proceeding
(2) PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
- Without conducting a search on illegal object is exposed to the eyes/ hands (touch, sight)
- NOt illegal per se
- the object to be seized: Illegal
(3) MOVING VEHICLE
- EFFECTS
- Extension of the home
- Nature of vehicle: it moves
- Urgency of the movement
- Immediate
- There should be PROBABLE CAUSE
*MUST establish FACTS and CIRCUMSTANCES
44 of 100
(4) SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST
ARREST SEARCH
Arrest must come first before search
Arrest must be lawful
Arrest must be accompanied by a valid warrant OR
Falls w/in the xpn of warrantless arrest
Where: PLACE where he has IMMEDIATE CONTROL
Search the body with search within the place of EFFECTIVE CONTROL
2 REASONS:
1. PROTECT THE ARRESTING OFFICER
2. PROTECT OR PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE WITHIN HIS REACH
(5) AIRPORT/ SEAPORT
AIRPORT: no reasonable expectation of privacy
: The society recognizes that under that situation : it is NOT a private place
PRIVATE PLACE: the owner of the place has the rt to impose reasonable search
(6) EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
- urgency
- I.e. Coup d etat done on a Fri night
** Stand of Atty Bong Lo: ONLY USED ONCE
(7) CHECK POINTS
- Not really warrantless
- Not allowed to search
- Use only PLAIN VIEW method in conducting the search
- SC: Unless there is an abnormal circumstance
REQUISITES:
45 of 100
1. there must be a check-point
2. Well lighted
3. Officers: In uniform and with nameplates
4. Information (posted, publicly made known - I.e. Tarp): Station Commander or who conducts
5. Courteous
6. Limited to PLAIN VIEW
(8) STOP AND FRISK
Case Law: Perry v. Ohio
- 17 times
- Tapping Not searching
- NO warrant: VALID
Why? It complied with the following:
1. Stop: reasonable ground to suspect
2. Frisked: defend himself from deadly weapon
3. Seized: On the basis of plain view
4. Arrested: in flagrante delicto
5. Searched: Incident to a lawful arrest
Contemporaneous Search
Same Place
Purpose
EXAMPLES:
1. Beating the red light -> Plain view >seized >Arrested > Searched
2. Moving vehicle -> stop
3. Check - point >Glove compartment - When it was opened (Invalid) BUT IF IT WAS OPENED BY THE OWNER:
Waiver
Depends on the circumstances
GR: It is upon the STATE
46 of 100
MERE silence is NOT a waiver
Optical Video: Raid > Violation of Copyright Law
: It is material to present Master copy
* Penal Laws: Prospective and NOT Retroactive
Case Law:
Rolito Go v. CA
While bias and prejudice, which are relied upon by petitioner, have been recognized as valid reasons for the
voluntary inhibition of the judge under Rule 137, sec. 1, par. 2, the established rule is that mere suspicion
that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge.
Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice. Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed
especially if weighed against a judges sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice
without respect to person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.
Pp v. Enrile
- Drug Pusher
- Not valid seizure, search and arrest

Under Rule 113, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, a peace officer or a private person may make a warrantless
arrest only under any of the following circumstances: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just
been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Not in plainview
1999: Wilson v. Lionel
- Media-tag-along
- Police went to the house unarmed
2007: LA____ v. Retel?
- 4 african american
Case: Pollo v. Constantino-David
- Computer: evidence of misconduct The employees personal files stored in the computer were used by the
government employer as evidence of misconduct.
- CSC Ee
47 of 100
- Anonymous complaint
- Back up to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.
The backing-up of all files in the hard disk of computers at the PALD and Legal Services Division (LSD) was
witnessed by several employees, together with Directors Castillo and Unite who closely monitored said
activity.
- It found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being
used by the petitioner, numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters7 in connection
with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals.
- Questions the legality of the search
- Ground: rt to privacy
- Relying on Obama v. Ortega, US v. Simons
- Authorized
- ISSUES:
- (1) Did the petitioner have a reasonable expectation of privacy
- (2) WON the search and seizure made valid?
- SC: The right to privacy has been accorded recognition as a facet of the right protected by the guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure under Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
- The Civil Service Commission (CSC) had implemented a policy that put its employees on notice that they have
no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send or receive on the office computers, and
that the CSC may monitor the use of the computer resources using both automated or human means.
- A search by a government employer of an employees office is justified at inception when there are reasonable
grounds for suspecting that it will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of work-related
misconduct. Thus, in the 2004 case decided by the US Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit, it was held
that where a government agencys computer use policy prohibited electronic messages with
pornographic content and in addition expressly provided that employees do not have any personal
privacy rights regarding their use of the agency information systems and technology, the government
employee had no legitimate expectation of privacy as to the use and contents of his office computer,
and therefore evidence found during warrantless search of the computer was admissible in
prosecution for child pornography. In that case, the defendant employees computer hard drive was
first remotely examined by a computer information technician after his supervisor received
complaints that he was inaccessible and had copied and distributed non-work-related e-mail
messages throughout the office. When the supervisor confirmed that defendant had used his
computer to access the prohibited websites, in contravention of the express policy of the agency, his
computer tower and floppy disks were taken and examined. A formal administrative investigation
ensued and later search warrants were secured by the police department. The initial remote search
of the hard drive of petitioners computer, as well as the subsequent warrantless searches was held as
valid under the OConnor ruling that a public employer can investigate work-related misconduct so
long as any search is justified at inception and is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances
that justified it in the first place.
- The CSC thus turned to relevant rulings of the United States Supreme Court, and cited the leading case of
OConnor v. Ortega22 as authority for the view that government agencies, in their capacity as
employers, rather than law enforcers, could validly conduct search and seizure in the governmental
workplace without meeting the probable cause or warrant requirement for search and seizure.
Another ruling cited by the CSC is the more recent case of United States v. Mark L. Simons23 which
48 of 100
declared that the federal agencys computer use policy foreclosed any inference of reasonable
expectation of privacy on the part of its employees. Though the Court therein recognized that such
policy did not, at the same time, erode the respondents legitimate expectation of privacy in the
office in which the computer was installed, still, the warrantless search of the employees office was
upheld as valid because a government employer is entitled to conduct a warrantless search pursuant
to an investigation of work-related misconduct provided the search is reasonable in its inception and
scope.
- the CSC held that petitioner has no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the computer he was
using in the regional office in view of the CSC computer use policy which unequivocally declared
that a CSC employee cannot assert any privacy right to a computer assigned to him. Even assuming
that there was no such administrative policy, the CSC was of the view that the search of petitioners
computer successfully passed the test of reasonableness for warrantless searches in the workplace as
enunciated in the aforecited authorities. The CSC stressed that it pursued the search in its capacity as
government employer and that it was undertaken in connection with an investigation involving
work-related misconduct, which exempts it from the warrant requirement under the Constitution.
With the matter of admissibility of the evidence having been resolved, the CSC then ruled that the
totality of evidence adequately supports the charges of grave misconduct, dishonesty, conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of R.A. No. 6713 against the petitioner.
These grave infractions justified petitioners dismissal from the service with all its accessory
penalties.
Bus: traffic enforcer
- brought K-9
- Illegal search
- WHY?
1. no warrant
2. no probable cause
3. no lawful arrest
4. Not normal to have k-9
When public safety provides for it:
Rt. against unreasonable searches and seizures
Both rt to privacy and liberty rt
S.2. = tangible things
S. 3 = Intangible things: enshrined in the constitution
Case: Butz v. US?
- Used as evidence in court
49 of 100
- covers intangible things
- Anti-wiretapping law.
- Corresponding imprisonment
- Illegal to seize a conversation in order to inter kept the conversation
- Private Conversation
- CCTV: there is nothing private
Limited to crimes of:
- Sedition
- Rebellion
*Public Order and Safety
I.e.
Estafa: cannot be used as an evidence in court
* Requisites of a valid warrant
Anti-wiretapping Law
Q: Is the use of telephone extension a violation of R.A. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law
No. The use of a telephone extension to overhear a private conversation is neither among those devices, nor
considered as a similar device, prohibited under the law. (Gaanan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986)

Note: Anti-Wiretapping Act only protects letters, messages, telephone calls, telegrams and the like.

The law does not distinguish between a party to the private communication or a third person. Hence, both a
party and a third person could be held liable under R.A. 4200 if they commit any of the prohibited acts under
R.A. 42

Q: Is the tape recording of a telephone conversation containing a persons admission admissible in evidence?
Why?

A: No. The tape-recorded conversation is not admissible in evidence. R.A. 4200 makes the tape- recording of
a telephone conversation done without the authorization of all the parties to the conversation, inadmissible in
evidence. In addition, the taping of the conversation violated the guarantee of privacy of communications
enunciated in Section 3, Article III of the Constitution. (Salcedo- Ortanez v. CA (G.R. No. 110662, August 4,
1994)
- Duration of the recording
* warrant for rebellion/ sedition
50 of 100
* However, another offense was done
Q: can it be used as an evidence
A: NO.
Letters:
Warrant Crime: Rebellion
Then there was estafa
Q: May such be used as evidence for estafa?
A: No. IT intrudes the conversation
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
5 RIGHTS
1. Expression
2. Speech
3. Press
4. Peaceably assemble
5. Redress of grievances
Q: What are considered protected speech?
A: Protected speech includes every form of expression, whether oral, written, tape or disc recorded. It includes motion
pictures as well as what is known as symbolic speech such as the wearing of an armband as a symbol of protest.
Peaceful picketing has also been included within the meaning of speech.
Q: Does a violation of any law justify the suppression of exercise of freedom of speech and of the press?
A: Not every violation of a law will justify straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press. There are
laws of great significance but their violation, by itself and without more, cannot support suppression of free speech
and free press. The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to private and public interest must be calibrated in
light of the preferred status accorded by the Constitution and by related international covenants protecting freedom of
speech and of the press. The need to prevent the violation of a law cannot per se trump the exercise of free speech and
free press, a preferred right whose breach can lead to greater evils. (Francisco Chavez v. Raul M. Gonzales, G.R. No.
168338, Feb. 15, 2008)
51 of 100
Q: What are the limitations of freedom of expression?
A: It should be exercised within the bounds of laws enacted for the promotion of social interests and the protection of
other equally important individual rights such as:
1. Laws against obscenity, libel and slander (contrary to public policy)
2. Right to privacy of an individual

3. Right of state/government to be
protected from seditious attacks

4. Legislative immunities
5. Fraudulent matters
6. Advocacy of imminent lawless conducts 7. Fighting words
8. Guarantee implies only the right to
reach a willing audience but not the right to compel others to listen, see or read
ALL FORMS OF EXPRESSION: Connotes inclusion of expression
* Press separate with speech: it does not grand additional rights to media
* Media/ Press: Referred to as 4th Estate
* Voice of the People
* Protect itself form the power of the state
* Not limitless; not absolute
Speeches and Expression: ALL FORMS
- Oral
- Written
- Non-written
- Art
- Emblems
UNPROTECTED SPEECHES AND EXPRESSIONS
WHY? IT poses clear and present danger
52 of 100
I.e. Alarms and Scandals
: Libel
: inciting to rebellion/ sedition
Alarms and Scandals: NOT ABSOLUTE
Clear and Present Danger
Other tests used:
- Dangerous Tendency
- Balancing of Interest: When it entangles with other important rights
Inciting to sedition/ rebellion: Mere inciting is already a crime
Even there is NO rebellion on going/ actually occurring, the fact that it can incite is already an offense
* Elements of Sedition
* Elements of Rebellion
NOT CAPABLE
LIBEL/ Defamatory Remarks
- Important: Published or made known to the public
- There is an imputation of a wrong whether it is true or false
- Malicious or done in bad faith
- PUBLICATION ordinarily: newspaper but it can be in
- Radio
- Television
- Third party involved.
SITUATIONS:
1. IF DONE in GF: not libel
- Done out of a social, moral or legal obligation
- Public disclosure is necessary in a Republican and Democratic State
53 of 100
2. If DONE in BF: libel even if it is true
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION is NOT libelous
2 KINDS OF PRIVLIDEGED COMMUNICATION
1. ABSOLUTE
- If they impute a wrong on somebody else
- Not liable even if it is published
- Rationale: If he will be restrained, his functions would be impeded
- Official Action
- Executive
- Judiciary
- Legislature
- Officials in the performance of their functions
- Does not have to prove BF/ Malice
2. CONDITIONAL
- I.e.
- Reporter
- Congress
- Court
- Deliberation
: Presumption - Done in GF
But to be in GF the following must be present:
Fair comment/ not to add something to impute a public official
Public Official v. Reporter
Burden of Proof is on
the one who accuses
of BF
54 of 100
Private Citizen: Comment to a Public Official
- Published
Not a reporter
- Every Defamatory remark = NO PRESUMPTION OF GF
- Presumption of BF
* PUBLIC OFFICIAL
: Subject to public criticism
: But still have a private life
* Private Citizen v. Private Citizen

- Even if it is true: Libel
- Truth is not a defense
Q: What if done in GF but it is NOT TRUE.?
A: No libel. Done out of GF. Purpose: so that the public will not suffer

Q: Discuss the Doctrine of Fair Comment.
A: The doctrine provides that while as a general rule, every discreditable public imputation is false because
every man is presumed innocent, thus every false imputation is deemed malicious, as an exception, when the
discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, such is not necessarily
actionable. For it to be actionable, it must be shown that either there is a false allegation of fact or comment
based on a false supposition. However, if the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts;
it is immaterial whether the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably be inferred from
facts. (Borjal v. CA, G.R. No. 126466, Jan. 14, 1999)

Q: Is the Borjal doctrine applicable in a case where the allegations against a public official were false and that
the journalist did not exert effort to verify the information before publishing his articles?
A: No. Borjal may have expanded the protection of qualified privileged communication beyond the instances
given in Art. 354 of the RPC, but this expansion does not cover such a case. The expansion speaks of "fair
commentaries on matters of public interest." While Borjalplaces fair commentaries within the scope of
qualified privileged communication, the mere fact that the subject of the article is a public figure or a matter
of public interest does not automatically exclude the author from liability. His articles cannot even be
considered as qualified privileged communication under the second paragraph of Art. 354 of the RPC which
exempts from the presumption of malice a fair and true report. Good faith is lacking. (Tulfo vs. G.R. No.
161032, September 16, 2008)
PRIVATE v. PRIVATE but about a PUBLIC CONCERN

- REPORT it in the Proper Authority
- IT IS STILL LIBELOUS
55 of 100
GAG LAW: Cannot publish the private matters of a public official
Even some private matters should not be denied access

I.e. The health, condition of the President
RATIONALE: IT is a public concern
SHIeLD LAW: Reporter cannot be compelled to reveal the source or the Info.
Otherwise, right to be informed will be hampered
THE PERSON MUST BE IDENTIFIABLE: even if not named, but IDENTIFIABLE: VIOLATES THE SHIELD Law.
PUBLIC FIGURE: has become a celebrity

* Case: Moises Padilla
- rt to privacy not only for the dead but also for the living
* using balancing of interest = Speech v. Privacy
A Dangerous Life: Enrile filed a TRO to prohibit its publication

- It constitutes a PRIOR RESTRAINT ON THE PART OF Enrile
- Not yet published
- Private Life is not a defense
- It is for the public interest
- Being a public figure, Enrile acquired a certain degree of celebrity status
OBSCENITY
- What may be obscene for one may be art to another
- Standards differ to the point of view of one with another
- I.e. Pope v. Person of ill Repute
STANDARDS USED:
1. AVERAGE PERSON TEST

: Problem with this test is that MANY PERSONS ARE AVERAGE
2. COMMUNITY STANDARD TEST

: Different Community, Different Standards
ASPECTS OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
1. PRIOR RESTRAINT
: over-restriction on the press
: In advance of actual public dissemination
: a.k.a. censorship
: creates a chilling effect
: clear and present danger
The first prohibition of the constitutional provision is the prohibition of prior restraint.
Note: Prior Restraint means official government restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in advance of
actual publication or dissemination. (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution A Comprehensive Reviewer 2006)
Q: Is the prohibition of prior restraint absolute? A: No. There are exceptions to the rule. Near v.
Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931) enumerates them:
1. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort
that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no court could regard them as
56 of 100
protected by any constitutional right.
2. The primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications.
3. The security of community life may be protected against incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow by
force of orderly government.
1. FEAR OF SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT

: AFTER the utterance
: Creates a chilling effect
: Not absolutely Prohibited

The free speech and press clause also prohibits systems of subsequent punishment which have the
effect of unduly curtailing expression. (Bernas, The 1987 Philippine Constitution A Comprehensive
Reviewer 2006, p.64)
Q. Is freedom from subsequent punishment absolute?
A: No, it may be properly regulated in the interest of the public. The State may validly impose penal
and/or administrative sanctions such as in the following:

1. Libel a public and malicious imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary or
any act omission, status tending to cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or judicial
person, or blacken the memory of one who is dead (Art 353, Revised Penal Code)
2. Obscenity in Pita v Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court declared that the determination
of what is obscene is a judicial function.
Criticism of Official Conduct In New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254 (1964), the constitutional
guarantee requires a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a
defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made
with actual malice.
3.Rights of students to free speech in school premises not absolute the school cannot suspend or expel
a student solely on the basis of the articles he has written except when such article materially
disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of rights of others. (Miriam College
Foundation v. CA, GR 127930, December 15, 2000)
2. Freedom of access to information
3. Freedom of circulation
MTRCB: Under the power of the Office of the President

Q: IS IT A FORM OF CENSORSHIP?
A: YES. clear and present danger
PD 1986
Isolated Passage Test

US v. Ro
: Is there a social redeeming value?
: Dominant Theme
: Does it involves a prurient interest?
I.e. SCHINDLERS LIST
57 of 100
1. Decision of the Court is not final
2. Burden of proof is on the state
Acts of Nudity: Is there a Social Redeeming Value?

If there is= Not obscene
Even if it has a prurient interest but has as Social Redeeming Value: Not obscene
Even if there is a Social Redeeming Value but the Dominant Theme is prurient: OBSCENE
CONTEMPORARY STANDARD
1. NATIONAL Standard Test
2. Aggregate Community Standard Test
3. Average Person Standard Test
Less Restrictive: Print Media
More Restrictive: Television
Most Restricitive: Radio however, they are self-regulatory
Soriano v. Laguardia: Puta: Defense: not a street word but a metaphor

SC: Obscene.
WHY? Considered the Audience. The standard used is the average standard of a Child
Most Restrictive: Live Show
Disini Case
Q: What are the tests for valid governmental interference to freedom of expression?
1. Clear and Present Danger test
Question: Whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity
and degree (Schenck v. US, 249 US 47, 1919)
Emphasis: The danger created must not only be clear and present but also traceable to the ideas expressed. (Gonzales
v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969)
Note: This test has been adopted by our SC, and is most applied to cases involving freedom of expression.
2. Dangerous Tendency test
Question: Whether the speech restrained has a rational tendency to create the danger apprehended, be it far or remote,
thus government restriction would then be allowed. It is not necessary though that evil is actually created for mere
tendency towards the evil is enough.
58 of 100
Emphasis: Nature of the circumstances under which the speech is uttered, though the speech per se may not be
dangerous.
3. Grave-but-Improbable Danger test
Question: Whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability, justifies such an invasion of free speech as is
necessary to avoid the danger (Dennis v. US, 341 US 494, 1951)
Note: This test was meant to supplant the clear and present danger test.
4. Balancing of interest test
Question: which of the two conflicting interests (not involving national security crimes) demands the greater
protection under the particular circumstances presented:
a. When particular conduct is regulated in the interest of public order
b. And the regulation results in an indirect, conditional and partial abridgement of speech (Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R.
No. L- 27833, Apr. 18, 1969).
5. OBrien test
Question: in situations when speech and non- speech elements are combined in the same course of conduct,
whether there is a sufficiently important governmental interest that warrants regulating the non-speech element,
incidentally limiting the speech element.
Note: A government regulation is valid if:
a. It is within the constitutional power of

the government;
b. In furtherance of an important or
substantial governmental interest;
c. Governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression;

and
d. The incidental restriction on the
freedom is essential to the furtherance of that interest. (US v. OBrien, 391 US 367, 1968; SWS v. COMELEC, G.R.
147571, May 5, 2001)
6. Direct Incitement test

Question: What words did a person utter and
what is the likely result of such utterance
Emphasis: The very words uttered, and their ability to directly incite or produce imminent lawless action.
Note: It criticizes the clear and present danger test for being too dependent on the specific circumstances of each case.
59 of 100
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________
La guardia v. Soriano
- MTRCB has no power to sanction
- Up to the network to discipline their own personalities
Regulation: COMELEC
*Media is prohibited form discussing the plebiscite.
SC: It is a violation of freedom of speech
* Plebiscite is not within the matters which are prohibited. Cannot be considered a regular election matter.
*COMELEC: REGULATE airtime and print space

- It is Constitutional in Airtime
- In Print Space: It amounts to taking
* Print Space is a Property Right
* There must be just compensation
Part of Eminent Domain

* Last Resort
* Genuine Necessity of the thing
* IF the newspaper does not allow or sell a specific space to the government
Case:
Broadcast media: Free airtime

1st: Network agreed
2nd: Challenged the regulation
SC: The regulation of the property is an exercise of Police Power
Not a right, but a privilege
* Legislative Franchis
Q: Just compensation?
A: No. Airwaves are not owned by the network, but by the state.
: The use thereof is regulated by the government
Does it violate the equal protection clause?

No.
- BROAD CAST: NOT the owner
- Print Media: Owner
In order to promote public policy: it is not a violation of the freedom of speech and expression
* Only during campaign period
* Prohibition applies only to candidates
Exit Polls
- SC: Decided it as UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- Freedom of Speech and Expression: Not official
60 of 100
Surveys
- SC: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- Provided that Survey is Legitimate
- Even if entered for a particular candidate
- Authenticity
COMMERCIAL SPEECHES
- There should be truth
- Lower in position in the hierarchy of rights
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
- in order not to subvert the justice system
- SC prohibits the discussion of the case
* Subjudice Rule: while the case is PENDING IN COURT
* Prohibition: Only pending cases
Courts are NOT EXEMPT from public criticism and public scrutiny
- To prevent the faith of the people with the Court eroded
- Clear and Present danger test
Case: Gonzales v. Zaldivar

- Tanodbayan
- Justice Navasa published
- SC: Suspended indefinitely
- It will erode the faith of the people
- Cause anarchy
Case: ERAPs Impeachment case

- Media was allowed to take coverage inside a courtroom
- It affects national Interest
- The proceeding is not judicial, IMPEACHMENT cases are POLITICAL in nature
Maguindanao Case
- Number of Victims, Number of the Accused: Many
- Use of the camera in court room was allowed
- The right of the people are matters of public concern
Guidelines for allowing camera to cover a court proceeding

(1)
(2)
(3)
Media-tag-along
As early as Pp v. Castello
- Police are prone to
- Practice should be stopped
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE PEACEABLY

- part of the freedom of speech and expression
- Power in numbers
Rally: Peaceful assembly

: For public assembly
PERMIT TO RALLY
GR: it is a liberty right, hence permit is not required
61 of 100
XPNS: Must secure a permit when:

* Rationale: To regulate TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER
Schedule
It cannot be denied simply because of inconvenience
If permit to rally is denied
What must be included in the permit?

1. Name
2. Purpose of the Rally
3. Who are involved
4. Secure from infiltration
Why is there the presence of police: to protect every citizen in case the rally turns to be chaotic, harmful
Police: Maximum Tolerance

- Present and Danger
Local Chief Executive:

- if he denies the conducting of a rally, the reasons must be stated
* Clear and present danger which must be supported by EMPIRICAL DATA OR PROOF
CASE: JBL Reyes v. Bagatsing

: Permit to rally in Luneta + Near Roxas Boulevard (US Embassy)
: Immediately
: In order to say that there is Clear and Present danger the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE STATE
: Applied for a permit but was later on denied
: SC: there is NO proof that there was a clear and Present danger
: even assuming that the Philippines adhere with the International Laws, there was no proof that the distance
_______
1017: Permit from mayor

- Not valid?
David v. Arroyo
Butch Aquino
Nestle Philippines v. Labor Union

- Strike, lock-out
SC: issued a circular that rallies shall not be allowed within a certain radium of courts of justice
REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
CASE: JBL v. Bagatsin
OBrien v. US
In order that it be valid
62 of 100
Although regulated, the motion used by the Government should be the LEAST restrictive to freedom of speech
and expression
CYBERCRIME ACT
Private Place: Consent of the owner of the Place
School Campus: NO need to secure a permit

: however, the school amy impose R & R
Freedom Park: Permits are not allowed
If no freedom park: All PUBLIC Places may be considered as Freedom Park
Public School Teachers Case held administratively liable

SC: They were held liable not because of the Freedom of Speech and Expression matter but because of their
absenteeism
Distinguish:
1. Content Based:
2. Content Neutral: No relation to the content
US v. Alvarez
10/21/15
Disini
Unsolicited
Imbong
1. Rt to believe
(ABSOLUTE): State
Cannot intrude
Free exercise clause
FREEDOM
OF RELIGION 2. Rt to act in accordance
Non-establishment clause to such belief : May be
limited
One religion
Establishing all religion
No law to be made
which will favor 1
religion over another
Apply the Strict scrutiny test: There must be a state compelling interest
63 of 100
Even if clear and present danger, there must be a compelling state interest and the restriction must be the LEAST
intrusive
If there are other restrictions w/c are less int
NO law shall be establishing one religion, or establishing all religions or no law w/c will favor one religion over
another =SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
PURELY religious conflicts, the state shall not side any religion
US: there is a board of education w/c regulates all the schools, they ordered to pray the Our Father
: basically a Christian prayer
: Not allowed
Formulated all religion, formulated an ecumenical prayer.

No. It fairies all religion
Instead: Offer a Moment of Silence SC held: No. it is a form of meditation (is either a religious activity or a useless
activity)
State must be religious neutral
bec There is a thin line b/n state activities and religious activities, expanding social economic rights
I.e. Helping the poor, meditation
Test whether the law is ever
1. Has a primarily secular purpose, legislative purpose, secular must only be incidental
2. the law must not primarily have the tendency to advance or inhibit a religion
3. There should be no excessive entanglement b/n the state and the religion, no active involvement
I.e Giving free lunch stubs regardless of religion - legislative purpose

- Giving computers to all schools
- Giving tax deduction to those who refuse a particular book or computer for non-religious activity where there will
be a close monitoring - violation
- US put up the 10 commandments, but the project was sponsored by =yes, there is no financial support, the
expense was shouldered by private individual but the state was the one creating the project, it advances one religion
Case: Arkansan Statue : Prohibits the Darwin Theory of Evolution, force them to discuss the Darwins Theory
: If they will not use the book, she will be charged administratively
: If she uses the book, she will be forced to teach the theory which the state
: SC, statue is unconstitutional
1000 fee for registration, is merely to defray the expenses of the legislation
Not a violation of the freedom of religion
AS long as there is a primarily legislative purpose
Case: Aglipay v. Ruiz
Fornacier v. CA
- who is the supreme bishop
- SC; Purely a secular issue
64 of 100
RH Law
Purpose: Give options to pregnant women whether they will use artificial or natural birth control
SC: Secular reasons: morals of certain issues

UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
- Compelling, requiring hospital, clinics, requiring them to give family planning
- Refere them to another hospital or clinic
- No substantial jurisdiction
Section 6.
Historical Background
1935: The liberty abode and of changing the same shall not be ____ w/n limits prescribed by the law
- Travel was not included: Implicit but not express
- Limited bylaw only when there is a clear and present danger
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
1973 Constitution
- and of travel shall not be impaired unless upon lawful order and the court or who necessary
- Explicit safety, health,

1987 CONSTITUTION
: SPLIT
: Liberty of abode and of changing the same
: Can only be impaired by law and neither ___________
: Interest, health, safety and security: TRAVEL
MANOTOC Case: Right to Travel

How can the Court impose its jurisdiction?
Case: City of Manila ________

: persons of ill repute were forced to leave
SC: Unconstitutional
Rubi v. Provincial Board of Oriental Mindoro

- Mangyan
- Declared by the SC as valid
- another issue: Private Fxns
- Does not need an ordinance
- Religious: Christians and non-Christians, does not refer to __________
Escritor v. Estrada
- Benevolent Neutrality: NO compelling state interest
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
- MATTERS involving public concern
- Duty of the public official to give
- Info: right of the people either foreigner or citizens
- Access to all the citizens: Limited to Filipinos
Life and Liberty Right
To be informed
- a PUBLIC RIGHT: anyone can invoke that
65 of 100
Not absolute
Limited
I.e Time to access
- Content: Not readily available
- Those involved in national security
- Deliberative phrase not available
Q: Right to information same with Freedom of Speech and Expression
Rt to infr is an essential Premise of the freedom of speech and expression
Not merely an adjunct of F. of speech and expression
Transparency of ________
Honesty in the public service
Purpose: Enhance public service
Involve in the governance of the state
Balmonte v. Belmonte
GSIS
: Filed a petition for mandamus
: SC: not discretionary
: List of members in the Batasang Pambansa: UNSECURED
: SC: Mandamus will lie, It is only against a public official
Belmonte has a right to privacy

SC: government officers has no right to privacy
Belmonte: Not from public funds
SC: GSIS is created by law. Public in Character
: Sessions of Congress, Public
- Conduct executive sessions
- Public is not allowed
Deportation
- Decision made that:
Secrecy in Bank Deposits

: Protect the Banking Systems
2 Exempted from MTRCB

: Produced by the Government
: News Reel (Straight Report)
: No comments
Inside Story: Loren Legard

MTRCB: Not news reel
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
66 of 100
shall not be prohibited provided that it is not contrary to law

- What makes it contrary to law is not on the name
- It is the Purpose w/c makes it contrary to law
: Not because of the name
: Even is the objective is noble
Right not to associate

- Rotary International v. Rotary
- primary purpose: good will and peace
IBP
- Mantilla
- SC: Already a member of the bar: Interrogate the associate: suspension of the SC
Section 9
Eminent Domain
- Private Property shall not be taken
Private property shall not be are property shall not be take for public use without just compensation
Shall not: Mandatory! (emphasis)
1. Taking: Expropriating - exercise of eminent domain

Pp v. Castel
1. Enter a private property

2. Warrant of color
3. Not for a momentary period, for public use
4. Totally oust the owner of the use and enjoyment of the property
- color or warrant of legal authority
2. Property to be taken: Private

Patrimonial: not included in
Public Use: Road public use, streets (Civil Code)
* Inherent power of the State
3. Public use: as long as the public derives a certain benefit
Legal authority
: as delegated power not an inherent power
4. Just compensation
5. Genuine Necessity
S. 19 of the LGC
IRR of Eminent Domain (32-42)
November 22, 2015
PUBLIC USE
67 of 100
Taking: must be direct
If taking is indirect: Red Control Law
Idle land
Constructively: Business
Taking
1. Full
2. Partial
Even if the ownership is taken if he is __________________
In perpetuity
Loss of the use of property: Just compensation
JUST COMPENSATION
* Judicial function: Congress cannot pass a law fixing the amount of Just compensation
Evidence must be submitted
Court:
1. Determine if there is a proper exercise of eminent domain
2. _________________
cost of the lost of the property
more than fair market value
Judge: not expert

- appoint commissioners
Judicial function
Patently illegal
Clear rules of procedure
Amount fixed by the Commissioner arbitrarily excessive

- the determination of validity of thing incapable of pecuniary benefit
CARL:
CARITAS V.S CA?
Not covered by the CARL
Formula: provided for by the law
Who? Depending on the site
- Brgy
- DARAB
- Regional
Determination of Just Compensation

* If you do not agree =
Comprehensive Agrarian
- alos an exercise of Police Power
- Aside from exercise of eminent domain
68 of 100
Eminent Domain Exercise
CARL: equal protection will apply
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
: Not inherent
: May expropriate even if it is already devoted for public use
GENUINE NECESSITY OF TAKING

- Chinese Cemetery v. Manila
: No LGC yet
: Issue: Certain owners of the lot agreed that the __________
: LGU insists on taking
: Genuine necessity is not present
Urban reform
: Urban problems in housing
Eminent Domain must be exercise as the last resort
Property taken for public use is expropriation based on law
Owner has the right to redemption
Return the just compensation
5 years from the taking
RA 7160
- delegated
- conditions
Note: EPZA vs. Dulay
Just Compensation based on the tax declaration
* Unconstitutional
* Just compensation is a judicial function
However:
* Sangguinan should otherwise ___________
1. Sangguinan: Pass an ordinance authorizing Mayor, Governor, to give an Offer in writing

2. Attached: enough funds for the purchase of the property
: And those attachment: there is no specific offer: No genuine necessity
3. If owner agreed, Contract of Sale
4. If owner wiling to sell But cannot agreed on the price: Local Chief Executive will make a committee
5. If owner finally agreed: State the Purpose
Offer >
without those procedures
Section 19
When they take immediate possession, 15% of the amount of the property based on tax declaration
* If the taking is valid: 15%
* Payment of all eminent domain proceeding be paid in cash
* Land Bank Bonds: CARL
* Debentures of the Government
69 of 100
Damages: 12% interest
IN determination of Just Compensation When is the Reckoning Date?

GR: at the time of the filing of the complaint for expropriation
XPT: If the Government took property prior to the filing of the complaint.
At the time of the taking of the property

Why?
There was already immediate taking
* Substantive Law prevails over procedure
Q: Can the government compel the PLDT to make interconnect with Bayantel?
: Contract, meeting of minds
: If the government compels for public use: Just compensation
: Eminent Domaing

PPI v. COMELEC
* EMINENT DOMAIN
* Not valid
Broadcast Media
- Under the license to operate
- Res nullus
- Government Regulats
Case: Denec? v. Bautista

RP v. De nec?
- Authorized DPWH
- to extend EDSA to Roxas Boulevard
- Law is unreasonable
- Violates the Due Process Clause
Case: Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga

- Nationalize_____
Baguio v. NAWASA
- Property of Baguio
Moday v. _____
Qualified Political Agency
* Cannot reverse the ordinance made by the municipal

* If invalid: _________
Section 10
No law impairing the obligations of contracts shall be passed

* Contract: Meeting of the minds between 2 persons to fulfill an obligation
* When is there impairment?
- When the relationship of the parties have been changed
70 of 100
- When the means are changed but can still be effected by other remedies
- Case: Decided
No violation of Section 10
: Addressed to Congress
: Contract is not a law
: Contract is not inferior to Law
: Contract must abide to existing laws
Government cannot change the relationship conditions, terms of the contract
I.e
1. A&B
2. A _______ govt
: Construction
: Php 20M
: Php 10 M immediately
: The fulfillment
: Change in the relationship
- violated Section 10

3. A - Govt
* Donation
Term: Within 5 years form donation the government will not convert the land into a commercial land

GOvt passed zoning ordinance
Q: Does it change the conditions of the contract?
Q: Did it violate section 10?
A: No. Police Power Zoning
Congenital Infirmity
: Government cannot bargain away
Section 11: rights of an accused
Section 12: Under custody

1. Rt to remain silent
Rt to be informed that he has the right
2. Competent counsel
3. Provided for one

Doctor
Waiver: writing, in the presence of the counsel
Jus cogens rights

- Universally accepted
- Slavery
- Genocide
- Violence
- Only to protect oneself
- Inadmissible in evidence against him
Par. 4: The law shall not provide -
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
71 of 100
*Disini
* Imbong
Section 11. Free access to courts and legal assistance
PAO
Pauper Litigant
- exemption to filing fees
- only natural persons
- not available to judicial persons
Section 12. Right of suspects.
Custodial Investigation
- Right to be informed that he has such rights
- Right to remain silent
- Miranda warning
- Right to a counsel, independent, competent, preferably his own choice
- Lawyer: Competent, independent: not merely supplied by the government
- May be waived in (1) writing, (2) done in the presence of a lawyer

SC: not counseling required by law, understand fully in a language he knows/understands
- Preferably of his own choice
Anti-Torture Act of 2007

- guarantee Section 12
- It adds the right, among others, to be informed of ones right to demand physical examination by an independent
and competent doctor of his/her own choice, which may be waived, provided it is in writing and in the presence of
counsel
- any confession and admissions obtained shall be held inadmissible
What the law prohibits?

- compelled admissions
- he is a suspect
If he belongs to a general inquiry

- It is not the one contemplated by S. 12.
- Voluntary and Spontaneous
Instances:
* A went to Brgy Captain, Brgy Captain went to B, B said sorry, Identified B as the perpetrator, B becomes as
suspect and No further questioning may be done
* Brgy Captains, Kagawads = law enforcement officers, they are obliged to inform the rights of suspects
Line-ups: do not generally require that the suspects be informed of his Miranda Rights.
Show-up (one person is presented to the witness) may be highly suggestive, thus requiring some procedural
safeguards
Great care should be done if a person is presented
Miranda rights available

- Arrested
- Custody for investigations from the time he was singled out as suspect, Miranda Rights set int
72 of 100
Paragraph 4: New Provision

- Penal
- Civil Sanctions
- Compensation and Rehabilitation of victim and family
Section 13: Right to Bail

- Made to assure that the accused attend every hearing
- Basis: Presumption of Innocence
* Bail is a matter of Right:

: If penalty meted is less than reclusion perpetua
: Evidence of Guilt is strong
* Bail is not a matter of Right
: If the penalty meted is reclusion perpetua or more
: Evidence of guilt is strong
: Hearing on bail
Q: Is hearing on bail mandatory?

A: Yes. Hearing on the bail is a must. The judge cannot forgo the rules even if the prosecution does not oppose
Q: Is he a flight risk?
1. Convicted by the RTC

: Crime Punishable by less than reclusion perpetua, appealed
: Q: Do you have a right to bail
A: Yes. Presumption of Innocence
2. Punishable by reclusion perpetua

Q: Crime punishable by reclusion perpetua?
A: Not a matter of right. He is already convicted. Not even a matter of discretion
1973 Constitution
- Suspension of Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus
- Automatically suspends the right to bail
BUT
IN 1987 Constitution
: It does not automatically suspends the right to bail
Section 14. Without Due Process of Law

Criminal
2nd Paragraph: Presumption of innocence
*Right to be heard in the presence of counsel

* Under custodial investigation
* Cannot be waived
Right to be informed of the accusation against him

- Name
- Identity
- When: Approximate
- Where: Need not be specific unless essential in the elements of the offense
Cause
: To make the proper offense ______
: IN a language he understands
73 of 100
Judge must exert all effort to explain the consequences of his plea
Competent to stand trial
Right to a speedy, impartial and public trial

: Not only a right of the accused but also of the victim
VAW-C
- May exclude the public
- May not divulge the identity of the victims
Meet the witnesses face to face
To have compulsory process

- Criminal Case
- Not compulsory in civil case: Pay
Subpoena
Jurisdiction over accused cannot be obtained until arraigned
Jurisdiction is never lost
Presumption of Innocence
RTC
Appeal
- Prima facie evidence that guilt is strong
Writ of Amparo: Reasonable Evidence
Extradition Cases: Clear and Convincing evidence
Administrative: Substantial evidence
Criminal: Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Civil: Preponderance of evidence
Trial in absentia
- Archive cases until valid arraignment
Section 15. Writ of Habeas Corpus

* GR: Not suspension
XPN: Invasion, rebellion, treason and WHEN PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT
: There is a state of emergency
President: Privilege of the Writ can be suspended

Cannot file a petition
Congress: Writ of Habeas Corpus

Can file a petition
Inform him of the nature
74 of 100
If missing: File an investigation

Writ of Amparo : To protect a persons LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY
THERE IS A THREAT: right to protection of the State
: Accountable
: Responsibility
INTERNATIONAL LAW
: States responsibility to protect human rights against violation
Q: What if the President commits the offense?
A: Exhaust all remedies first, International Criminal Court as a last resort
Military
Q:___________
A: Indirect State Responsibility if it ignored its obligation to protect
: Conspirator
: International Criminal Court
: Jus Cogens: universally accepted, part of the laws of the land
Writ of Habeas Data: give the document
Writ of Habeas Corpus: By or on behalf of the person
Writ of Amparo: by the person himself or families of the victim
No person shall be used as an evidence against himself
Must rely on the strength of its own defense and not on the weakness of the other partys evidence
What is prohibited: Compulsion

Oral Testimonial
Written Compulsion
Putting him in a situation lie under oath
Testimonial Evidence is being contemplated not real or object evidence
XPT:
- Writing/ Signature/ Hand writing
: Produced by the accused
: Not admissible
: Not mere mechanical work but also requires intelligence
Civil Case:
- Witness
- Accused caused by the _______
Jus Immunity
- Prohibits witnesses testimony
Transactional Immunity
- Grants immunity to the witness to present _______
Q: Is right to bail available to an extraditee?

A: Initially, the SC held NO.
Case of Purganan

* Case: HK v. Olalia
75 of 100

Deportation Proceeding

International Law
- It is a soft law
- Remedies under International Law
- Counter measure
- Retorsion

* Case: Pp v. Ebangelio? (2011)
- Robbery with Rape
Amparo: To protect
: Responsibility - extent of participation
: Accountability measure of remedies available
: i.e. Military officer accountable
- failure extraordinary diligence
Actionable Wrong: Right from fear or threat

Whether the threat is true or not
Threat: Stimulus
: Weight of evidence relevant to the ________
Section 18. political beliefs and aspirations

- Any belief
- Solely on that belief
Section 19. Involuntary Servitude

- No forced labor
- Xpt when convicted by Final Judgment
No excessive Fines
Not Inhuman, cruel and degrading Inhuman Punishment
Right against violence, physical, psychological

: detainee
Presumption of Innocence
: Does not mean that all rights are still available
: civil and political rights
Case: Trillanes v. Pimentel
Fine: Not imprisonment
NO person shall be placed in jeopardy for the same offense
Double Jeopardy
i.e. estafa and violation of BP Blg. 22
Place in jeopardy for the same offense
Different: Statue and Ordinance

: If it comes from the same act
76 of 100
First Jeopardy: Must be arraigned

: After arraignment and after plea
: If there is a mistrial
: The second trial is NOT DOUBLE JEOPARDY
JURISDICTION
: Already acquired
: Tijam v. Sibonghanoy
: Pp v. Dacuycuy
No Infringement _______
Case: Brown v. Plata
US Case: Cruel and Unusual Punishment
: 8th amendment provision
NO EXPOST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER

: ______
: Retroactive in their application
: No disadvantage
: Separation of Powers
Case: Valeroso v. Pp
RA 8294
: Decreasing the penalty of illegal possession of firearms
: Imposed penalty
: Not disadvantageous to the accused

________________________________________________________________________________________________________
citizenship:it is a political entity
Nationally: doesn't need to have a state to become a national

- must only belong to a specific race, tribe
: Socio-economic entity
International Law: citizenship and nationality is used interchangeably
As a citizen:
Rights and Privileges: enjoy as member of a state

(1) Protection of the State - guarantee life, liberty,
(2) Provide Facilities and Services
Obligations and Duties

(1) Owe Allegiance to the State
(2) Observe the Constitution and its Laws
(3) Pay taxes
(4) Vote
77 of 100
How does one acquire citizenship? Not necessarily in the Phil.
1. INVOLUNTARILY
- BORN with it
- Not chosen
- I.e. United States: Born in their place entitles one to be citizens. (Jus Soli)
- because of different rules of different states, depending on their history conflict of laws arises
- bec of diff rules, and the easy way of transpo, Intermarriages, migration
- It is possible to have more than 1 citizenship
- I.e. China (jus sanguina) follow citizenship of parents
Situation. A born in the U.S.A. of Filipino Parents

- If citizenship is challenged in the Philippines (Broadcast company)
- The Judge can determine, then you are a filipino
- Why? Parents Filipino.
- Is A is also an american? Philippines has no jurisdiction to determine. US determine who their citizens are.
- Dual citizenship not by choice but by birth
- Dual citizenship no dual allegiance is prohibited
Stateless: At least one state
The duty of the state is extended beyond the territory of the Philippines.
Philippines is in a very peculiar situation. Filipinos go abroad for greener pasteur. becomes naturalized
citizenship.
Situation. Before a person becomes a US citizens, a person must renounce the Filipino citizenship.
SC: dual allegiance is not equated with dual citizenship.
Px arises when a person with dual citizenship decides to run for a public office
Dual citizenship: does not need to renounce foreign citizenship
2. VOLUNTARY
- ADOPT a foreigner to become a citizen of the country
- Process.
- File a petition for naturalization
RA. 9225 (Mercado v. Manzano)

- Filed a petition for naturalization
- TO show all the qualification and none of the d/q
- After 1 year: Determine WON Fit
- Fit: Cancel alien, certificate of naturalization
- Not yet naturalized. But not yet full pledged
- Two year probationary period
- full pledge.
- then such person shall have the full rights and privileges. XPT to run for a few high positions
- President
- VP
- Senate
- Constitutional Commissions
- Members of the SC
78 of 100
- Ombudsman
Qualifications for Naturalization

1. 21 y/o
2. Residence requirement: Actually and continuously residing in the Philippines for 10 years.
Only 5 year requirement if:
1. born in the Phil
2. A teacher
3. has introduced certain useful inventions
3. Believes in the Constitution
4. Of good moral character
5. Conduct
6. Able to speak and write in English and 1 Filipino Dialect OR Spanish and 1 Filipino Dialect OR Arabic and 1 FD
7. If with a minor child, must enroll his child in a Filipino School
8. Must have a business, profession or occupation
AND MUST NOT POSSESS AND OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS

1. Terrorists
2. Anarchists
3. Polygamist
4. Those suffering from mental alteration
5. Incurable Diseases
6. Not subject of enimation
7. Country must allow Filipino citizens to be naturalized in their country (RECIPROCITY)
* BY A LEGISLATIVE ACT
- FR. MORAN
* IT IS NORMALLY THROUGH JUDICIAL PROCESS

Local Government: Naturalized citizens
* Lose citizenship
* Involuntarily: By Congressional Act
I.e. Deserter of war

* Voluntarily
I.e. Renunciation
* RA 9225: Repatriation Act

To regain Citizenship

Q:
A: Did not require to renounce the foreign citizenship
* To run an elective public office

(1) renounce Foreign citizenship
(2) Take an oath of Allegiance
* Multiple Citizenship is also possible
* Determine under what Constitution a person is Born

1973 -
1987 -
Father Fil. + Mother Not = Filipino
Mother Fil. + Father Not = Filipino
79 of 100
Father Fil. + Mother Not = Not yet

= Have to choose
= 21 y/o, until then he/she is an alien
Px:
Q: What if the father does not automatically grants citizenship?
Natural Born?
Elect?
Retract to the time of the birth
1987: deemed natural born citizens
Who are the citizens of the Philippines?

Section 1.
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) those Born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
before 1987 Constitution (Took effect on Feb. 2,

1987)
1973 Constitution
1. Before the adoption of 1973 Constitution (January 17, 1973)
2. Father or Mother
3. ____________
4. Naturalized
1935 Constitution
1. before 1935 Constitution (Nov. 15, 1935)
2. _________
3. Father only
4. Mother only is a Filipino and such person elects the Filipino
citizenship upon reaching age of majority
Philippine Bill of 1902

- General Mass Naturalization
(1) Inhabitants and Residents of P.I. who are considered as Spanish subjects as of April 11, 1899
(2) Children of #1
(3) Those who have been naturalized by law
(4) Children of # 3
(5) Foreign women married to a Filipino men
(6) Those who have been adjudicated by res judicata
Repatriation
- Oath of Allegiance
Dual allegiance is inimical
80 of 100
ARTICLE V: SUFFRAGE
SUFFRAGE: Right of a qualified citizen to vote

: available in a democratic State
: People have the right to participate in the government of the State
: Not all people can.
Republican: People chooses their representative, then their representatives are the ones who votes for the
peoples choice
Indirect exercise of sovereignty
Direct exercise of sovereignty
- Suffrage
- others Revolution - Extra-constitutional
Citizens duty: To vote, more of a right rather than a duty
During Martial Law: The government controls all the resources of the government
Hence, one time, people boycotted the election
- A law was pass threatening the people
- Providing for penalty
- Opposition: did not vote
- However, later on, as Marcos sees that he might be rebuked by the international community for penalizing voting
rights, he granted Amnesty to all who violated the law to exercise suffrage.
Who are qualified to vote?

1. At least 18 years old at the day of the election
Not less than 15 for the SK
2. Citizenship: Natural born or naturalized may vote
3. 1 year of resident of the Philippines and at least 6 months where he/she intends to vote
Residence
spirit to return/ revert
did not abandon
Animus revertendi
DOmicile
does not mean actual residence

Case of Butch Aquino:
- placed place of residence: concepcion tarlac"
- Domicile; Residence; In order for a person to qualify as a candidate for a district, he must prove that he has
established not just residence but domicile of choice.We agree with COMELECs contention that in order that
petitioner could qualify as a candidate for Representative of the Second District of Makati City the latter must prove
that he has established not just residence but domicile of choice.
- Residence, for election law purposes, has a settled meaning in our jurisdiction.The Constitution requires that a
person seeking election to the House of Representatives should be a resident of the district in which he seeks election for
a period of not less than one (1) year prior to the elections. Residence, for election law purposes, has a settled meaning
in our jurisdiction.
- Clearly, the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, i.e., his domicile, is that to
which the Constitution refers when it speaks of residence for the purposes of election law.Clearly, the place where a
party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be found at any given
time, eventually intends to return and remain, i.e., his domicile, is that to which the Constitution refers when it speaks
of residence for the purposes of election law. The manifest purpose of this deviation from the usual conceptions of
residency in law as explained in Gallego vs. Vera is to exclude strangers or newcomers unfamiliar with the conditions
and needs of the community from taking advantage of favorable circumstances existing in that community for electoral
gain.
- While there is nothing wrong with the practice of establishing residence in a given area for meeting election law
requirements, this nonetheless defeats the essence of representation, which is to place through the assent of voters those
most cognizant and sensitive to the n eeds of a particular district, if a candidate falls short of the period of residency
mandated by law for him to qualify.
- The absence of clear and positive proof showing a successful abandonment of domicile under the conditions in the
instant casesentimental, actual or otherwisewith the area, and the suspicious circumstances under which a lease
81 of 100
agreement was effected all belie petitioners claim of residency for the period required by the Constitution.
- Domicile of origin is not easily lostto successfully effect a change of domicile, a person must prove an actual removal
or an actual change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a
new one and definite acts which correspond with the purpose
Case of Imelda Marcos

- Domicile includes the twin elements of the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place and animus manendi, or
the intention of returning there permanently
- Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical
presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The essential distinction between residence and domicile in law
is that residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may
seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a persons intent be to remain, it becomes his domicile; if
his intent is to leave as soon as his purpose is established it is residence. It is thus, quite perfectly normal for an individual
to have different residences in various places. However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various
reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.
- As these concepts have evolved in our election law, what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence
for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile
- an individual does not lose his domicile even if he has lived and maintained residences in different places. Residence, it
bears repeating, implies a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes. The absence from legal residence or
domicile to pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute
loss of residence. Thus, the assertion by the COMELEC that she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City since
childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy because she became a resident of many places flies in the face
of settled jurisprudence in which this Court carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for election
law purposes.
- To effect an abandonment requires the voluntary act of relinquishing former domicile with an intent to supplant the
former domicile with one of her own choosing (domicilium voluntarium)
4. Registered Voter
5. NO literacy and Property Requirement
* STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY
* The persons must not have the disqualifications

1. Convicted by Final Judgment for disloyalty to the Philippines, or any crime against national security, or firearms
law
2. Sentenced by FJ to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year
3. Insane or incompetent
* Removal of disqualification:
1. Plenary Pardon
2. Amensty
3. Lapse of 5 years from service os sentence
* Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (RA 9189)

the law entitles the citizens of the Philippines abroad.
Embassy
* Military Personnel
* NB: Only for National Positions,done through Secret Ballot
ELECTION:
1. REGULAR: Fixed by the Constitution, 2nd month of May
National Elections
- President
- VP
- Members of Congress
~ Senate
~ House of Rep
- Party-List
~ Represents Minority, Dominant Pary as long as they do not participate in the District Representative Run
82 of 100
~ Marginalized group : Established by Law, or if not, must prove or establish that they represents a marginalized
group
- Four Parameters of The Filipino Party-List System
(1) twenty percent allocation - the combined number of all party-list congressman shall not exceed 20% of the total
membership of the House of Representatives.
(2) The two percent threshold - Only those who obtained a minimum of 25 of the total valid votes cast for party-list
shall be qualified to have a seat.
(3) The three seat limit - Obtaining absolute proportional representation is restricted by the three-seat-per party
limit.
(4) Proportional Representation - The additional seats w/c a qualified party is entitled to shall be computed in
proportionate their total number of votes

* Representatives must be members of such group, or share the advocates of the political party
2. SPECIAL: Fill in the Vacancy, Called for by Congress

: For Local
3. RECALL
PLEBISCITE: CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

CONGRESS Creates a Constitutional Convention
Then it submits to the people
- Usually deals with SUBSTANTIAL PART- REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION
CONGRESS creates a CONSTITUTIONAL ASSEMBLY

- THEN the people votes won to accept the changes in parts of the constitution
- Some PART
Power to Make laws: Delegated to the Congress
INITIATIVE Applies to:

a. STATUTE
B. ORDINANCE
(1) SIGNATURE
- 10% OF THE registered voters
- Pass to COMELEC
- COMELEC Schedules day for election
(2) Majority of the Votes Casted

- Does not need the approval of the President
REFERENDUM - APPLIES TO:

A. STATUTE
B. ORDINANCE
(1) People themselves

10% of the signature
(2) Ordinance
- 25% of the LGU
(3) Indirect Initiative
- An organization passes to the Congress
RECALL: Voting him out of office

- Ground: Loss of Confidence: Political question, undergo the process of recall
- Only applicable to local elective officials
83 of 100
25% of the registered voters > COMELEC SETS A DATE -> RECALL ELECTION
EFFECTS:
1. Recalled official is prohibited from resigning from office
2. Winning official only serves the unexpired portion of the term of office being vacated.
3. Cannot apply for recall during (1) 1 year of office, (2) 1 year before an election, Meaning this can only be raised on
the 2nd year
Congress can create a new LGU

* APPROVED by the People: Those who will be affected are included to vote in a plebiscite.
* NB. Atty. Bong Lo Comments: Wrong, dapat referendum
* Who are directly affected?
Election Plebiscite Initiative Referndum Recall
What/ who are persons/ Statute Statute Statute persons/

involved? individuals individuals
Issues? Only Constitutional Even Ordinances Even Ordinances

Issues
Who initiates? Congress Congress/ LGU/ Congress/ LGU/

People Themselves People Themselves
COMELEC
Duties:
- Ensure an honest, orderly and peaceful election. + free (HOPE + FREE)
Deputize all the government agency

- Military
- Teachers
* Executive: Implement
* Quasi-Legislative:
* Quasi- Judicial
* Prosecutory Powers
* Regulate media
- Size
- Number of house
- airspace
7 MEMBERS
1 Chairman
6 Members
- Majority: Lawyer
- Natural Born
- Requirements?
Case: Monsod vs. Cayetano
84 of 100
7/5/3
- To ensure continuity of policies
- Staggered: Hindi naabutan yung president
Prohibited: Acting in
- Independent
Pre-proclamation
Quo-Warranto
Election Contest
HRET
SET
PET
ELECTION PROTEST
: Contest the election or return of an elective official
REQUISITES:
1. FILED by a candidate who has filed for a COC or has been voted upon for the same
2. On grounds of fraud, terrorism, irregularities or illegal acts committed BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER the casting
and counting of votes
3. XPT for Pres, VP and Senators, w/in 10 days from the date of proclamation
HRET
SET
Decision of the RTC
Proclamation vs. Pre-Proclamation
Jurisdiction: Once Official Has been proclaimed and assumed office, there can be no pre-proclamation
President
Vice President No Pre-Proclamation allowed UNLESS for certain grounds
Senate
Situation
A: 1st in rank: D/Q for an election offense
B: 2nd in rank
B will assume office

Permanent Vacancy in the office of Mayor
Governor and V-Governor
Mayor and V-Mayor
When it comes to consent of the people__________?
A: Does not hold anymore?_______
PCOS
Once the official term begins the pre-proclamation ENDS
ELECTION PROTEST V. QUO-WARRANTO
Powers of the COMELEC
1. Executive: Appoint the BOI
2. Prosecutory: File a case
3. Deputization: Transpo, Police Force, Teachers
4. File a case for criminal axn
: May be done by COMELEC
: SUPPLETORY
Findings of Probable Cause
: Judge will also determine Probable Cause
: Q: can a judge rely on finding of Probable Cause by COMELEC?
A: yes. It will not preclude the judge form finding the probable cause
Electoral Tribual:
NO______
85 of 100
XPN: Special Action for Certiorari

Actin in their own independent judgment
Submit Total Expense after election
Administrative
Not penalty
Even if a candidate withdraws, he/she must file
QUASI-LEGISLATIVE
Resolutions
Rules
QUASI- JUDICIAL
Determine issuances on Pre-proclamation controversies
JUDICIAL
WORK OF THE BOI

Prepare
(1) Orderly system of election
- assist illiterate (unlimited number)
- if somebody is not qualified to vote, none may challenge, but still allowed to vote
PARTY-LIST SYSTEM
3 Groups Listed in the Constitution
(1) Minor Political Parties
- give a chance to minority groups
- To determine, it will depend on the results of the last two elections
- Active
- Even a dominant party can field a candidate provided that they do not participate or join the dominant parties
(2) MARGINALIZED
- Show why marginalized and underprivileged
- Must also be a member of that group
- May not be marginalized but must have advocated the same cause
(3) SECTORAL
- CAUSE oriented groups
- A candidate must show their membership is local, regional or national
B.E. 3 STANDARDS OF EQUAL PROTECTION

- Case Ang Ladlad
(1) National Basis Test
- Least restrictive
- As long as there is a reasonable connection
(2) Strict Scrutiny Test

- Religion
- Race
- Highly suspcet?
- WHY?:
a. There must be a compelling state interest
b. Least restrictive?
(3) Intermediate Scrutiny
Churches: Organizations whose based on Religion?

Regulatory Power
: Size
: number of hours/ airtime
D/Q: final decision, May not be voted for
D/Q: not yet final decision
86 of 100
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
President
Supervisory Powers
DILG
Indirect Supervision
Independent Component
Province Highly Urbanized Cities
Cities
Barangay
Barangay
component cities
Barangay
Settlement of Boundary Disputes

Jurisdiction

(1) Sangguiniang Panlungsod or Sangguinang bayan : Involving two or more barangays in the same city or
municipality
(2) Sangguinang Panlalawigan: Those involving two or more municipalities within the same province
(3) Joint Sangguinangs of the Provinces concerned: Those involving municipalities or component cities of different
provinces
(4) Joint Sanggunians of the parties: Those involving a component city or municipality on the one hand and a highly
urbanized city on the other, or two or more highly urbanized cities.
87 of 100
Province Province
Component City
Municipality Municipality
Barangay Barangay
I.e.
Municipality and Component City (SAME PROVINCE): Sanguniang Panlalawigan
2 Provinces: Resolved by both Sanguniang Panlalawigan of the 2 Provinces
1 Component City of 1 Province and Municipality of another Province: BY BOTH Sanguniang Panlalawigan
Province and Highly Urbanized city: Respective Sangguniangs
HUC AND ICC: RTC
Under Section 118 of the Local Government Code (LCC), the settlement of a boundary dispute between a
component city or a municipality on the one hand and a highly urbanized city on the otheror between two or
more highly urbanized citiesshall be jointly referred for settlement to the respective sanggunians of the local
government units involved.
Since there is no legal provision specifically governing jurisdiction over boundary disputes between a municipality
and an independent component city of the same province, it follows that regional trial courts have the power and
the authority to hear and determine such controversy. (Municipality of Kanaga v. Madrona, 402 scra 330)
AUTHORITY OVER POLICE UNITS

Q: Has the LGU control over the Police?
A: None.
Section 6 of Art. XVI of the Constitution Mandates the State to establish and maintain one police force which shall be
national in scope and civilian in character, to be administered and controlled by a national police commission.
Under RA 6975, LGU exercise the following authority over the PNP w/n their territorial jurisdiction
1. Thru the LCE, except barangay, the power to appoint the Municipal/City Chief of Police or Provincial Director
2l Thru the LCE, except barangay, operational control and supervision over the PNP
3. Thru the PEOPLES LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD, a local special body, exercises concurrent disciplinary
jurisdiction over erring PNP personnel
1. Right to sue and be sued
: State cannot be sued without its consent
2. Stae is the people, cannot sue the sovereign power.
However, it can be sued it it gives its consent
Express : Express consent may be made through a general law or a special law. In this jurisdiction, the
general law waiving the immunity of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, where the Philippine
government consents and submits to be sued upon any money claim involving liability arising from
contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis of civil action between private parties.
Implied
: when the state enters in its proprietary power
Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus opening itself
to a counterclaim or when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to have
descended to the level of the other contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity.
: It descents to a private corporation
: XPN: US v. Ruiz
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings arise out of commercial
transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State
88 of 100
may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be sued only when it enters into business contracts, It does not apply where the contract relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case the projects are an integral part of the naval base which is
devoted to the defense of both the United States and the Philippines, indisputably a function of the government
of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated to commercial or business purposes.
Suability is not the same with liability

: To give a chance to prove that the State is performing a private action
Doctrine of non-suability of the State; Contracts; Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a waiver of
its non-suability; Distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of its sovereign function
and another which is done in its proprietary capacity.
Q: If it was shown that they were performing governmental functions:
A: There are different schools of thought
(1) No. It can only be liable if it is performing a proprietary function unless there is a law making them liable.
I.e. Performance thru a special agent
- garbage collector
- driver: liability is personal
Outsourcing Agents
- Private corporations acting as employer?
- If Private Corporation commits liability: LGU is liable
- Respondeat superior
DEFENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT
Quasi-Delict: Performance of diligence in the supervision and selection
Police fails to give assistance:
Civil Code: Police liable
LGU: Subsidiary liable
Taxes
_______
Return + damages
Civil Code:
Art. 2189: The local government unit is liable in damages or injuries suffered by reason of the defective
condition of roads, stress, bridges, public building and other public works.
Art. 2180(6): The State is responsible when it acts thru a special agent
Art. 34. The local government unit is subsidiary liable for damages suffered by a person by reason of the
failure or refusal of a police force to render aid and protection inc case of danger t life and property.
Art. 24 of the LGC:
LGU and its officials shall not be exempt from liability in cases of damages
: Mandatory
: Liable?LGU and officials?
Opinion:
(1) Despite of Art. 24: it only is in the exercise of the corporate power
(2) The law does not distinguish
(3) Presume these is a purpose, there is wisdom
If a LG is engaged in governmental functions, it is not liable
If engaged in a proprietary function, local government unit is liable
Personal liability of local official
Where public officers act maliciously and wantonly and injure individuals rather than discharge a public duty, they are
personally liable. Thus, the Provincial Governor and the members of the Provincial Board were held liable for damages in
their personal capacity raising from the illegal act of dismissing employees in bad faith. (Rama v. CA, 148 SCRA 496)
Cannot be sued, but based on expert opinion
ABL *Liable by express provision of law
CONTRACT: before a chief enters into a contract, it must be authorized by the Sanggunian.
GR: A municipal corporation, like an ordinary person, is liable on a contract it enters into, provided that the
contract is intra vires.
Doctrine of Implied Municipal Liability: A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to
pay the reasonable value of the benefits accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general power
to contract. The doctrine applies to all cases where money or other property of a party is received under
89 of 100
such circumstances that the general law, independent of an express contrac, implies can obligation to do
justice with respect to the same.
Mayor entered into a contract with a Private Construction, the LGU avers that there was no contract
Schools of thought:
Estoppel. Benefited from the Contract
SC: estoppel does not lie against the state
: On the question of estopple, is authority for the rule that estoppel cannot be applied against a municipal
corporation in order to validate a contract which the municipal corporation has no power to make or which it is
authorized to make only under prescribed limitations or in a prescribed mode or manner even if the
municipal corporation has accepted benefits thereunder. - (San Diego v. Municipality of Naujan, Oriental
Mindoro)
Estoppel is not an issue
It is equity.
The LGU cannot ratify ultravires actions
Invalid contracts can be ratified: within the power or the Local Government
San Juan v. CSC
When the Civil Service Commission interpreted the recommending power of the Provincial Governor as purely
directory, it went against the letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions on local autonomy. If the DBM
Secretary jealously hoards the entirety of budgetary powers and ignores the right of local governments to develop
self-reliance and resoluteness in the handling of their own funds, the goal of meaningful local autonomy is frustrated
and set back. The right given by Local Budget Circular No. 31 which states: SEC. 6.0The DBM reserves the right
to fill up any existing vacancy where none of the nominees of the local chief executive meet the prescribed
requirements. is ultra vires and is, accordingly, set aside. The DBM may appoint only from the list of qualified
recommendees nominated by the Governor. If none is qualified, he must return the list of nominees to the
Governor explaining why no one meets the legal requirements and ask for new recommendees who have the
necessary eligibilities and qualifications. The PBO is expected to synchronize his work with DBM. More
important, however, is the proper administration of fiscal affairs at the local level. Provincial and municipal budgets
are prepared at the local level and after completion are forwarded to the national officials for review. They are
prepared by the local officials who must work within the constraints of those budgets. They are not formulated in the
inner sanctums of an all-knowing DBM and unilaterally imposed on local governments whether or not they are
relevant to local needs and resources. It is for this reason that there should be a genuine interplay, a balancing of
viewpoints, and a harmonization of proposals from both the local and national officials. It is for this reason that the
nomination and appointment process involves a sharing of power between the two levels of government.
The value of local governments as institutions of democracy is measured by the degree of autonomy that they enjoy.
Citing Tocqueville, he stated that local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations. x x x A people
may establish a system of free government but without the spirit of municipal institutions, it cannot have the spirit
of liberty. (Sinco, Philippine Political Law, Eleventh Edition, pp. 705-706). Our national officials should not only
comply with the constitutional provisions on local autonomy but should also appreciate the spirit of liberty upon
which these provisions are based.
CANNOT APPOINT WHOEVER HE FANCIES
FEDERATIONS
- NOT an LGU
- COMELEC has no jurisdiction
November 24, 2015
Q: A naturalized Fil. Citizen run for congress?

A: False
Q: An insane illiterate can vote in an election?

A: False
Q: Campaign period ends on election day

A: False. It ends 2 days before the election
90 of 100
Q: COMELEC has original jurisdiction in all election contests?

A: False. COMELEC loses jurisdiction once it becomes an election protest
Q: Congress can abolish all brgy?

A: False. Eliminating one whole class cannot be allowed.
Q: Dual citizenship can be acquired involuntarily.

A: True.
Q: A filipino green card holder can vote in the may 2016 elections?
A: False. If you are a permanent resident abroad, not a resident in the Philippines.
Party-list
Preamble: Rule of Law, GOVERNMENT OF LAWS AND NOT OF MEN
Constitution: Highest Law of the Land
Government: Presidential - 3 branches
Presidential v. Parliament
In Parliament system, fusion b/n the executive and legislative
We adopt the Presidential System of the US
Why different Systems?
Parliament: Fusion, the programs and rules may not be implemented
presidential Government: There were several states, they form a federal state, there is a suspicion that
power tends to corrupt, in order to prevent this, they separated the functions of the government
Three Important Functions
(1) There must be a law, implemented
(2) They must be implement,
* Political
* INPUT
* OUTPUT: made by execution
* Out of suspicion
(3) Must be interpreted
Must reflect the resentments of the people
not by legal means but by political means: Inputs
Output: Deliberate to the people, deliberation, execution and implementation
Presidential system: suspicion of becoming a totalitarian state
HEAD OF THE GOVERNMENT: Not necessarily the HEAD OF STATE

I.E. King, Queen
Parliamentary: Prime Minister
- persons who execute: members of the cabinet
- divided into several departments
- each department is headed by a minister
- to consolidate: there is a Prime Minister
: PM is not actually higher from other ministers
: Equal
: to head the government
: First among equals
: Majority: lays down the policy
: Minority: check, acting like an opposition
: Also designate each for the check of each
: Shadow Cabinet
Multi-party system
Majority: Lays down the policy
Minority: Checks the acts of Majority
Shadow Government
: Even the opposition
They choose their head of State: President
- Head of State: Symbol of Unity
91 of 100
Political Unity and Stability

Head of Government: Prime Minister
I.e. France
Head of State
Head of Government
Both with real powers
Presidential
Constitution
Legislative Judiciary
Executive
Senate
House of
Representative
s
Party-List District
Senate House of Representatives
Composition 24 Not more than 250
92 of 100
QUALIFICATIONS 1. Natural-born 1. Natural-born

2. At least 35 years of age on the day 2. At least 25 years of age on the day
of election. of election.
3. Able to read and write.

3. Able to read and write.
4. Resident of the Phils. for not less
than 2 years immediately preceding 4. Except the party-list reps, a
the day of election. registered voter in the district in
which he shall be elected.
5. Resident thereof for a period of

not less than 1 year immediately
proceeding the day of the election.
Term of Office 6 years, commencing at noon on the 3 years, commencing at noon on the
th th
30 day of June next following their 30 day of June next following their
election. election.
Term limit: Only up to 2 consecutive Term limit: No member of the HoR

terms. However, they may serve for shall serve for more than 3
more than 2 terms provided that the consecutive terms.
terms are not consecutive.
How removed from office Expulsion by the Senate with the Expulsion by the House is with the
concurrence of 2/3 of all its concurrence of 2/3 of all its
members. (Sec. 16, par. 3, Article VI) members. (Sec. 16, par. 3, Art. VI)
CONGRESS
Bicameral
Congress
- Senate
- House of Representatives
1935
1973
1987
Idea, to delay the passing of the law.
It depends on the culture, way of life, tradition of the people
Voting by the Constitutional Committee
- they expected to have a unicameral system
- in the committee level, and passed in the plenary: Bicameral
- px: draft was fitted for a unicameral system
93 of 100
i.e. voting jointly and voting separately

- the constitution is silent
CO-EQUAL, one is not higher than another, each separate, one cannot encroach into the powers of another
System of checks and balance
Senators chosen at large
staggered election
continuity of legislative policy
Appoint their own officers
Speaker pro temporae
VP ex officio senate President in the US
Adopt their own Rules
Change their own rules, that is a political requirement, XPT if there is a constitutional issue violated
Case: Avelino vs. COMELEC?
THEY create their own committees

on the day of the election- Case of Benigno Aquino, in the 1935 Constitution
THEY choose their own leaders/ officers
Discipline their own ranks
- SC cannot discipline
- suspension: penalty
- differs with preventive suspension : Not a penalty, automatic, merely to prevent
- CASE!!
Has many functions
Some are non-legislative functions
(1) SOLE POWER to Declare a State of War
(2) To APPROVE by 2/3 votes of the senate the treaty entered into by the President
(3) Power to lift Martial Law, such was not vested in the Congress in the Previous Constitutions
(4) (President: Power to Appoint and the Power to Remove) Certain positions in the constitution that needs
confirmation
Appoints the Members on the Commission on Appointments coming from the Congress BUT THEY ARE SEPARATE
BODY FROM THE CONGRESS
(5) Power to declare a State of Emergency
- implications, i.e. discretionary funds
(6) Conduct investigation (may also be a legislative power) to aid in legislation
Q: kelangan ba ng pending bill in aid of legislation?
A: Political Question left to the Congress
(7) Grant Amnesty together with the President
(8) Can Impeach
- Pres
- VP
- Members of Constitutional Commission and OMB
- Senate
(9) Approve budget on General Appropriations Law- may be legislative
Power of the Purse
may call for question hour,
what if the head refused?
: Power of the Purse
: Interpellation
MAIN FUNCTION: MAKE LAWS more than anything
Q:Head of Department may refuse, without the consent of the President?
A:
Budget, once approved, cannot be changed: juggling of funds, without approval of Congress (technical Malversation)
May be done by the Head of the Department, may CONSENT
What is prohibited: one branch to another, UNCONSTITUTIONAL

DAP, Pork Barrel
(1) Violation Separation of Powers
(2) Transfer funds form one branch to another
94 of 100
(3) No accountability
(4) Legislative has no function
(5) Violates the LGUs power on the determination of _____________
PDAF: there must be consent from the Congress
Impoundment:
Prohibited by Administrative Code
PNoy: Re-alignment
Operative Fact Doctrine: Even if the exercise was unconstitutional, the fruits stay as it is.
Deficient Fund?
Congress issue a special appropriations- singled out
How do they make laws?
1. Propose a Law > Bill
: Either in the Senate or HoR
2. Set a Schedule for Plenary
: Heard on 3 meetings on separate Meetings EXCEPT if adjudged by the President to be urgent (pwedeng agad-agad)
Regular Sessions: 4th monday of July, they schedule it
Special Sessions: President (urgent need) : cannot tackle what is not included in such meeting Agenda is
specified.
95 of 100
BILL: An Act of Increasing the

Salary of Public School teachers
and appropriating funds therefor
1st Reading: Yeas and Naes

Book> Journal (Used as a tool for Statutory Construction)
Appropriate Committee
1st Reading: make drafts
2nd Reading: to make drafts If Approved
and SUBMITS final DRAFT
TO PLENARY for Third reading
Committee on Committee on
Education Budget
2nd Reading: Interpellation, the speaker must

defend the bill.
Approval
If there are two versions of the bill in the Senate and HoR
- IF THE SAME VERSIONs
- Special Committee to
RECONCILE
- 3rd Reading Send it to HoR or senate: it will Authors must be Present
- undergo the same process Enrolled Bill (FINAL
DRAFT) > Submit to
t h e President for Approval
- ALL are recorded by the Secretary (Journal, Minutes, Records, Enrolled Bill IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS)
If there is a conflict between Journal v. Enrolled Bill: Enrolled Bill Prevails
RULES
One subject Matter per bill
Log Rolling OR Hodge Pudge
The title must embrace the subject matter of the Bill
Basta related sa Title
Must be germane to the purpose of the law
Embraces
RH Law
- Responsible Parenthood
- Contraceptives
all points to population control
Rider RH Bill, then on the latter portion a provision says We declare war against China
Tax Bill must always originate from the HoR
Identified Constituents
Senate and HoR: The bill must originate from the HoR and not the Law itself
96 of 100
Represent the People
November 26, 2015
Privileged Speech
: Cannot be criminally liable
: if the penalty is Less than 6 years: to avoid the political strategy on the part of the dominant party
: If the penalty is more than 6 years: May be arrested
: If penalty is less than 6 years and the congress is not in session: Arrested
: Libel, defamation, slander : cannot be held liable
: But if he delivers the same speech in a talk show, not the one contemplated
Certain Prohibitions
: Govt is the state Prosecutor
: Can give advice
: He is an owner of a company, or a relative of 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity: conflict of interest
Legislative > Enrolled Bill, submitted to the executive, this is the one approved by the
(1) Approval of the President
(2) Disapproves the Bill by signing and saying VETO and overridden by Congress
: May become a law if Vetoed He must explain, return the vetoed bill where the bill originated,
What can the Congress do?
* Take the explanation of the President
Pass the bill again, with 2/3= overridden
President
What if the PRes did not act on the enrolled bill: File with the SC
* Mandamus
* Petition for prohibition
* Check and balance
(3) Presidential Inaction (1935 Constitution)
* Must be published in a newspaper of General Circulation
* 30 days
once it becomes a law, it must be published in the OG or newspaper of general circulation
* Ignorance of the law excuses no one

Executive may Rules and Regulation for the Laws made by the Congress
: It has the force and effect of the law
: It must not be contrary to law and the Constitution
: Its just implementing the law
: once it becomes an effective law: Pres should implement the law
Enforce, Implement
: The sovereign people thru the constitution Vested with executive power ALONE, no one else
ALTER EGO:
: thru agents, corporations, bureaus
: it is presumed that it is the Presidnets
: not immuned from suit, especially if his act is not - doctrine of qualified political agency
Cannot implement all at the same time
Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency
: Executive Power is vested with the President Alone, he alone exercises
: However, Acts of Alter Ego is presumed to be acts of the PResident, UNLESS it is reversed by the President
Corollary to this Doctrine
Control and Supervison
Control: Kung may control sa kanya, and the decision was lawful, pwedeng palitan
Supervision: merely Oversee if the subordinate is acting in accordance with law
File a disciplinary or administrative action, but cannot REVERSE the decision of the AGENT
ART. VII, SECTION 4.
I FYOU have control and not supervision
97 of 100
no Control Power: LGU

: Why? Thrust of Art. II assume Autonomy in all regions
Power to Appoint and Power to Remove
- Unless, the constitution will provide certain prohibitions,
Constitutional Requirements
: Cabinets
: Other offices, Constitutional COmmissions, OMB, must be conferred by the COA,
: Pag wall dun, Doesn't need confirmation of the COA
Commission on Appointments
Regular Appointment (If Congress is in Session)
: Permanent until confirmed by COA
Ad Interim Appointment (If Congress is not in session)
: Permanent until the Congress Revokes
: If COA does not revoke: Permanent
: Once COA denies, cannot be reappointed
:
Civil Servants: Must have Civil Service Eligibility
: Merit and Fitness Rule
: How? CSC Exam
: Exempt: If graduated in College with Latin Honors, Bar Exam and Board Exam but needs to apply
: Political Appoints: SECRETARY OF A DEPARTMENT
Highly Technical
Policy Determining
Primarily Confidential
Security of Tenure: YES.
Coterminous with the term of office of the appointing officer
It is coterminous with the pleasure of the President
REMOVED ANYTIME, but only up to the point the president wants them to be there
POWER OF REMOVAL
: Just cause and Due Process
: Constitutional Commission, OMB
Restrictions
: Only be removed
JUDICIARY
: Chief Justice up to the inferior court judges -> appointed by the President but form the SHORT LIST
RECOMMENDED BY THE Bar Council
: Can only be removed by IMPEACHMENT
RESTRICTION He cannot appoint heads of Bureaus, Constitutional Commissions
: ANY relative within 4th degree of a/c
: Anti- Nepotism
Within 2 months prior to the election: He cannot make a Midnight Appointment, UNLESS TEMPORARY
appointment is required by public safety and welfare
* Corona: Not midngiht Appointment Only applies to Executive Branch and not to Judicial Branch
Appointment Different from Designation
GORDON Case: Red Cross: Sui Generis
since it is not strictly governmental, Gordon may exercise 2 positions.
DFA
Represent the Government in another country
VP: Does not need the confirmation of COA
President: First Ambassador
- Diplomatic Power of the President
- Treaty: Confirmation of 2/3 of the Senate
: Executive Agreements, the diplomatic power is vested in the President
Department of National Defense
Armed Forces
Military/ War powers
(1) Call out AFP when there is lawless violence
98 of 100
(2) Suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

(3) Martial Law Powers only in cases of Invasion, Rebellion and when Public Safety Requires it
(Martial Law was questioned) SC: Political Question
: Trust and Pray
: Trust (1935)
: The Court cannot go into the factual basis
: In 1987, can be revoked by the Congress, 48 hours, whether to revoke or not, Congress can extend upon
initiative of the President
: Writ to Bail is not suspended, not automatically suspend the operation of the Constitution
: May go to SC to inquire the propriety of the Martial Law
: SC: If we tie down the hands of the President
DILG
Bureaus
I.e.
BJMP
NAPOLCOM
BFP
BIR
x LGU- only supervisory
Police: Not from the military power of the President but from the Control and Supervision
: Administered and Controlled by NAPOLCOM under the DILG
Designation
: Additional work, scope
: dual position,
: Not violation of prohibition on holding of 2 positions
Operational Control and Supervision
: Day to day, not policy determining
: Control - NAPOLCOM
: Not policy Determining
: PNP in Local Chief Executive Operational Control and Supervision Deputized by NAPOLCOM
Problem Area: pero hindi Dineputize yung BFP, BJMP
: Shared by LGU and
DENR
Bureau of Forestry, Fishery, Water
Monitor Logging
BOF issuesLicense
: Hearing and administrative - denied
: Recourse: go to the agency under that office- bureau-
: But if it is acting in behalf of the Pres - go direct to OP
: Pag wala, regular court
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
: Rationale:
: Prevent over clogging of courts
: Correct their own mistakes in their own branch
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
: the court will not acquire jurisdiction if it has not undergone remedies under the administrative
DOJ
: Secretary of Justice
: A Secretary!
: Prosecute (Criminal Case)
: Probable Cause
: Remedy: Go to the higher official
: may go to supreme Court - grave abuse of discretion
JUDICIAL POWER
One Supreme Court all other inferior Courts Created by Law
99 of 100
Jurisdiction
- RTC
- MTC
Mode of Review
(1) Appeal
(2) Petition for Review
(3) Certiorari: pure question of law
Special Civil Action
(1) Mandamus
(2) Prohibition
(3) Writ of Habeas Corpus
(4) Quo Warranto
(5) Certiorari : Court has no jurisdiction, acted with grave abuse of discretion, in excess or no jurisdiction
100 of 100

Political Law Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Political Law Review

Lecture (Atty. Bong Lopez)

*If it is not necessary but the private sector is not seen

*The distinction becomes blurred

Suability vs. Liability

BRIEF HISTORY OF PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

PRESIDENTIAL VS. PARLIAMENTARY

Pedrosa: Sign an initiative

Initiative vs. Referendum

Definition Power of the People to propose Power of the legislation thru

Power of the electorate to

INITIATIVE REFERENDUM ACT

Q: Who can interpret the constitution?

SCs decision En Banc > part of the laws of the land

Executive and Administrative Bodies

ORDINANCES are like RR

GR: If it is not founded on a law, there are no ordinances to speak of.

INTERNATIONAL LAW (A. 2, S. 2) Incorporation Clause

LIBERALLY INTERPRETED (BBC)

GIVEN UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION

*Due process clause not defined in the Constitution

Constitution: Prospective rather than retrospective

In case of Doubt, provisions are self-execution

PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

- meaning: to walk before

* Liberty vs. Freedom

ONLY SPECIFIC provisions are changed

CONSTITUENT VS. LEGISLATIVE POWER

STEPRS IN THE AMENDATORY PROCESS:

1. Theory of Conventional Sovereign

(iii) PEOPLE, thru the power of initiative

1. Initiative on the constitution 1. Referendum on Statutes

1935 historic rights and legal title

TERRITORIAL CONTIGUOUS EXCLUSIVE

HIGH SEAS: more than

Foreign ships may pass thru Internal waters

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

PRINCIPLES: Philosophies of a nation shared by person in that state

POLICIES: Acts in order to attain the ideals and aspirations

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES: ARE MERE DECLARATION

you need enabling laws

couched in general terms.

UNLESS declared by the SC as self-enabling laws.

2. Guide to all departments of the government

DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE

REPUBLICAN: Representative Salus Populi est suprema lex

2. Rule of Majority (Plurality in elections)

3. Accountability of public officials

5. Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws

1. DIRECTLY: suffrage. By conserted activities.

1. POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY: Values, Common

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 3.

Q: What is meant by the principle of Civilian Supremacy?

Put Military Under Civilian

Q: When is Military supreme over civilian?

Q: Is a President a Military Officer?

Q: Why is a Military not a valid government?

ARTICLE II, SECTION 4.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 5.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 6.

The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.

Church: any religion or belief.

(1) Act is allowed by the religion?