Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
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.
¥say
1. Constitutional Law—the study of the maintenance of the proper balance between
authority as represented by the three inherent powers of the state and liberty as
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
2. Administrative Law-- That branch of public law which fixes the organization,
determines the competence of administrative authorities who executes the law,
and indicates to the individual remedies for the violation of his right.
3. Law on Municipal Corporations
4. Law of Public Officers
5. Elections Law
Page 17/12/2008
Basis:
1. 1987 Constitution
2. 1973 and 1935 Constitutions
3. Organic laws made to apply to the Philippines—
a. Philippine Bill of 1902
b. Jones Law of 1916
c. Tydings-McDuffie Law of 1934
4. Statutes, executive orders and decrees, and judicial decisions
5. US Constitution
Constitution Statute
legislation direct from the people; legislation from the people’s representative;
intended not merely to meet existing intended primarily to meet existing conditions
conditions; only;
it is the fundamental law of the State it conforms to the Constitution
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
1
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Constitution—it is the document which serves as the fundamental law of the State; that
body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the power of sovereignty are
habitually exercised.
That written instrument enacted by direct action of the people by which the
fundamental powers of the government are established, limited and defined, and by
¥say
which those powers are distributed among the several departments for their safe and
useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.
It is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to
which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be
valid, however noble its intention, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution
must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Right or wrong, the
Constitution must be upheld as long as the sovereign people have not changed it.
Page 27/12/2008
Classification:
1. Written or unwritten
Written Unwritten
-one whose precepts are embodied in one -consists of rules which have not been
document or set of documents integrated into a single, concrete form but
are scattered in various sources
Examples: a. statutes of fundamental
character;
b. judicial decisions;
c. commentaries of publicists;
d. customs and traditions;
e. certain common law principles
3. Rigid or Flexible
Rigid Flexible
2
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
-one that can be amended only by a formal -one that can be changed by ordinary
and usually difficult process legislation
Interpretation:
1. Verba Legis—whenever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be
¥say
given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed.
Page 37/12/2008
whole. (Francisco vs. HR, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003)
If the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other aids is
available—construe the Constitution from what “appears upon its face”. The proper
interpretation, therefore, depends more on how it was understood by the people
adopting it than in the framers’ understanding thereof.
3
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
a. Constitution of Liberty—sets forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the
citizens and imposes limitations on the powers of the government as a means of
securing the enjoyment of those rights. e.g. Bill of Rights
b. Constitution of Government—outlines the organization of the government,
enumerates its powers, lays down certain rules relative to its administration and
defines the electorate. e.g. Legislative, Executive and Judicial Departments,
Constitutional Commissions
c. Constitution of Sovereignty—the provisions pointing out the mode or procedure
¥say
in accordance with which formal changes in the fundamental law may be brought
about. e.g. Art. XVII-Amendments or Revisions
Page 47/12/2008
iii. it imposes no duties;
iv. it affords no protection;
v. it creates no office;
vi. it is inoperative, as if it had not been passed at all.
Partial Unconstitutionality
Requisites:
a. The legislature must be willing to retain the valid portion(s), usually shown by
the presence of a separability clause in the law—INTENT OF THE
LEGISLATIVE; and
b. The valid portion can stand independently as law—INDEPENDENCE OF
THE PROVISIONS.
PREAMBLE
4
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
TRUTH, JUSTICE, FREEDOM, LOVE, EQUALITY, AND PEACE,
DO ORDAIN AND PROMULGATE THIS CONSTITUTION.
Page 57/12/2008
The identification of the Filipino people as the author of the constitution calls
attention to an important principle: that the document is not just the work of
representatives of the people but of the people themselves who put their mark approval
by ratifying it in a plebiscite.
ARTICLE I
NATIONAL TERRITORY
5
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands
and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial
domains, including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves,
and other submarines areas. The waters around, between and connecting the
islands of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part
of the internal waters of the Philippines.”
¥say
Two (2) Parts of the National Territory:
1. The Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced therein; and
2. All other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
Page 67/12/2008
Sea. It is not part of the Philippine Archipelago. Historically, when we talk about
Philippine Archipelago, we refer to those islands and waters that were ceded by
the Spain to the United States by virtue of Treaty of Paris in 1898. And that did
not include the Spratlys Group of Islands yet. Under the treaty, the islands that
were ceded by Spain were identified—the main islands—Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao. Clearly, it did not include the Spratlys Group of Islands.
6
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
and effective occupation and control. Thus, in accordance with the international law, the
Spratlys Group of islands is subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines.
Do you consider the Spratlys group of Islands as part of our National Territory?
Yes. Article I of the Constitution provides: “The national territory comprises the
Philippine archipelago, x x x, and all other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction, x x x.” The Spratlys Group of islands falls under the second
phrase “and all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or
¥say
jurisdiction”. It is part of our national territory because Philippines exercise sovereignty
(through election of public officials) over Spratlys Group of Islands.
What was the basis of the Philippines’ claim over the Spratlys?
Through discovery of Tomas Cloma and occupation
Page 77/12/2008
Doctrine of Effective Occupation—discovery alone is not enough. Mere discovery gives
only an inchoate right to the discoverer. For title to finally vest, discovery must be followed by
effective occupation in a reasonable time and attestation of the same.
2. Cession by Treaty. Examples are Treaty of Paris, treaty between France and US
ceding Louisiana to the latter and treaty between Russia and US ceding Alaska to
the latter;
3. Prescription—which is a concept under the Civil Code. Territory may also be
acquired through continuous and uninterrupted possession over a long period of
time. However, in international law, there is no rule of thumb as to the length of time
for acquisition of territory through prescription. In this connection, consider the
Grotius Doctrine of immemorial prescription, which speaks of uninterrupted
possession going beyond memory.
4. Conquest or Subjugation (conquistadores)—this is no longer recognized,
inasmuch as the UN Charter prohibits resort to threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state; and
5. Accretion—another concept in the Civil Code. It is the increase in the land area of
the State, either through natural means, or artificially, through human labor.
Philippine Archipelago:
1. Treaty of Paris, December 10, 1898—Cession of the Philippine Islands by
Spain to the United States;
2. Treaty between Spain and US at Washington, November 7, 1900—inclusion
of Cagayan, Sulu and Sibuto;
7
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
regular municipality claiming it the Municipality of Kalayaan, placing it under
the Province of Palawan.
“xxx The waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago,
regardless of their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.”
This second sentence of Article I is not the Archipelago Doctrine. This is only
our restatement/reaffirmation of our adherence to the Archipelago Doctrine
Page 87/12/2008
simply because we are an archipelago consisting of 7,107 islands. It is essential
for our national survival that we adhere to the archipelago principle.
2 Kinds of Archipelago:
1. Coastal Archipelago—situated close to a mainland and may be considered a
part thereof.
2. Mid-Ocean Archipelago—situated in the ocean at such distance from the
coasts of firm land. The Philippines is classified as mid-ocean archipelago just
8
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
like Indonesia. The Philippines is not in any way connected physically with the
Asia mainland.
¥say
among them are:
i. Rivers—which may be:
1. National
2. Boundary—divides the territories of States
3. International—flows thru various States
a. Thalweg Doctrine—for boundary rivers, in the
absence of an agreement between the riparian states,
the boundary line is laid on the middle of the main
Page 97/12/2008
navigable channel.
b. Middle of the Bridge Doctrine—where there is a
bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the
middle or center of the bridge.
9
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
archipelagos. It may include other islands.
Page 107/12/2008
the total number of baselines enclosing any archipelago may
exceed that length, up to a maximum 125 miles. The baselines
drawn should not depart, to any appreciable extent, from the
general configuration of the archipelago. All the waters within the
baselines shall then be considered internal waters. The breadth of
the 12-mile territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive
economic zone and the continental shelf shall then be measured
from the archipelagic baselines.
c. Territorial Sea—the belt of the sea located between the coast and the
internal waters of the coastal state on the other hand, and the high seas
on the other, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the low-water mark, or
in the case of archipelagic states, from the baselines.
10
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Baseline—is a line from which the breadth of the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone is measured in order to
determine the maritime boundary of the coastal state.
Types of baseline:
i. Normal Baseline Method
ii. Straight Baseline method
¥say
sea; this shall not exceed 24 nautical miles from the archipelagic
baselines.
The coastal state may exercise limited jurisdiction over the
contiguous zone:
1. To prevent infringement of customs, fiscal immigration or
sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial
sea; and
2. To punish infringement of the above laws and regulations
Page 117/12/2008
committed within its territory.
The continental shelf does not form part of the Philippine territory. The
Philippines has the sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purpose of
exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.
g. High Seas—treated as res communes, thus, not territory of any particular
State. These are the waters which do not constitute the internal waters,
archipelagic waters, territorial sea and exclusive economic zones of a
state. They are beyond the jurisdiction and sovereign rights of States.
11
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Page 127/12/2008
12
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Page 137/12/2008
III.Aerial—this refers to the air space above the land and waters of the State.
(See Discussions under International Law)
ARTICLE II
13
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Sec. 1, Article II
The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government authority emanates from them.
(Relate this to Article XI)
¥say
2. Manifestations:
Ours is a government of law and not of men (Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39
Phil 778).
Rule of the majority. (Plurality in elections)
Accountability of public officials
Bill of rights
Legislature cannot pass irrepealable laws.
Separation of powers.
Page 147/12/2008
Republicanism
State Nation
-is a legal or juristic concept -is an ethnic or racial concept
State Government
-possesses a government to which a great -merely an instrumentality of the State
14
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
body of inhabitants render habitual through which the will of the State is
obedience implemented and realized.
Republican state—one constructed on the principle that the supreme power resides in
the body of the people. Its purpose therefore is to guarantee against two (2) extremes:
1. On the one hand, monarchy and oligarchy;
2. On the other, pure democracy.
¥say
Elements of State:
1. People—the inhabitants of the State; the # of which is capable for self-
sufficiency and self-defense; of both sexes for perpetuity.
a. Inhabitants;
b. Citizens;
c. Electors.
2. Territory—a fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of
Page 157/12/2008
the State.
15
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Forces—established and
maintained by the military forces
who invade and occupy a
territory of the enemy in the
course of war;
c. Independent Government—
established by the inhabitants of
the country who rise in
insurrection against the parent
¥say
State.
Page 167/12/2008
Minister who is chosen by, and
accountable to, Parliament.
16
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
It is the right to exercise the functions of a State to the exclusion of any other
State.
¥say
adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity, with all
nations. By the doctrine of incorporation, the country is bound by generally accepted
principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of our own
laws.
Page 177/12/2008
the people.
Kinds of Sovereignty:
a. Legal—the power to issue final commands;
b. Political—the sum total of all the influences which lie behind the law;
c. Internal—the supreme power over everything within its territory;
d. External—also known as independence—freedom from external control.
Characteristics:
a. Permanence
b. Exclusiveness
c. Comprehensiveness
d. Absoluteness
e. Indivisibility
f. Inalienability
g. Imprescriptibility
17
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Dominium—is the capacity of the State to own or acquire property such as lands and
natural resources. (Lee Hong Hok vs. David, No. L-30389, December 27, 1972;
Separate Opinion of Justice Kapunan in Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR, G.R. No.
135385, December 2000)
It necessarily includes the power to alienate what is owned. It was the foundation
for the early Spanish decrees embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia that all lands
¥say
were held from the Crown.
Principle of Jus Postliminium—at the end of the occupation, when the occupant is
ousted from the territory, the political laws which have been suspended shall
Page 187/12/2008
automatically become effective again. (Peralta vs. Director of Prisons, No. L049,
November 12, 1945)
18
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Sec. 2, Article II
(Incorporation Clause)
¥say
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.
Page 197/12/2008
3. Adherence to a policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation & amity.
The second part is nothing more than a formal acceptance of a principle to which all
civilized nations must conform.
The third part is called the “selfish policy”—the guiding principle of Philippine foreign
policy is the national interest. However, this is tempered with concern for “equality,
peace, freedom and justice.
Section 23 (1), Article VI: The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in
join session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the
existence of a state of war.
However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal
standing with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.
19
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Lex posterior derogate priori—in States where the constitution is the highest
law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in conflict with
the Constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18,
2000)
Philip Morris, Inc. vs. CA, 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.
¥say
Doctrine of Autolimitation—
It is the doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law
as a limitation to the exercise of its sovereignty.
Page 207/12/2008
Sec. 3, Article II
(Civilian Supremacy Clause)
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.
Sec. 18, Art. VII—installation of the President as the highest civilian authority, as the
commander-in-chief of the AFP—external manifestation that civilian authority is
supreme over the military.
Sec. 5(1), Art. XVI—members of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the Constitution,
which is the fundamental law of the civil government.
Civilian supremacy is not a guaranteed supremacy of civilian officers who are in
power but of supremacy of the sovereign people. The Armed Forces, in this sense, “is
the protector of the people and the State”.
Sec. 6, Article XVI—The State shall 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. The authority of local executives over the police units in
their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the deployment of the
20
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Marines does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy clause. The calling of the
marines in this case constitutes permissible use of military asset for civilian law
enforcement. x x x The limited participation of the Marines is evident in the provisions of
the Letter of Instruction (LOI) itself, which sufficiently provides the metes and bounds of
the Marines’ authority. It is noteworthy that the local police forces are the ones charge of
the visibility patrols at all times, the real authority belonging to the PNP. In fact, the
Metro Manila Police Chief is the overall leader of the PNP-Marines joint visibility patrols.
Under the LOI, the police forces are tasked to brief or orient the soldiers on police patrol
procedures. It is their responsibility to direct and manage the deployment of the
¥say
marines. It is, likewise, their duty to provide the necessary equipment to the Marines
and render logistic support to these soldiers. In view of the foregoing, it cannot be
properly argued that military authority is supreme over civilian authority.
It is worth mentioning that military assistance to civilian authorities in various
forms persists in Philippine jurisdiction. The Philippine experience reveals that it is not
averse to requesting the assistance of the military in the implementation and execution
of certain traditionally “civil” functions. x x x Some of the multifarious activities wherein
military aid has been rendered, exemplifying the activities that bring both the civilian and
the military together in a relationship of cooperation are:
Page 217/12/2008
1. Elections;
2. Administration of the Philippine National Red Cross;
3. Relief and rescue operations during calamities and disasters;
4. Amateur sports promotion and development;
5. Development of the culture and the arts;
6. Conservation of the natural resources;
7. Implementation of the agrarian reform program;
8. Enforcement of customs laws;
9. Composite civilian-military law enforcement activities;
10. Conduct of licensure examinations;
11. Conduct of nationwide test for elementary and high school students;
12. Anti-drug enforcement activities;
13. Sanitary inspections;
14. Conduct of census work;
15. Administration of the Civil Aeronautic Board;
16. Assistance in installation of weather forecasting devices;
17. Peace and order policy formulation in local government units.
This unquestionably constitutes a gloss on executive power resulting from a
systematic, unbroken, executive practice, long pursued to the knowledge of Congress
and, yet, never before questioned. What we have here is a mutual support and
cooperation between the military and civilian authorities, not derogation of civilian
supremacy.
Sec. 4, Article II
The prime duty of the Government is to serve and protect the people. The
21
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
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.
¥say
Posse Commitatus—it is the power of the state to require all able-bodied citizens to
perform civic duty to maintain peace and order.
In People vs. Lagman, 66 Phil. 13, the accused in this case, prosecuted for
failure to register for military service under the National Defense Act, assailed the
validity of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld the law on the basis of the compulsory
military and civil service provision of then 1935 Constitution. It said that: “x x x. The duty
of the 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
Page 227/12/2008
duty to the Government excusable should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to
enlist therein…x x x 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. x x x.”
Sec. 5, Article II
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.
Right to bear arms: It is statutory and not a constitutional right. The license to carry a
firearm is neither a property nor a property right. Neither does it create a vested right.
Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered absolute as to be placed beyond
the reach of police power. The maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of
the people against violence are constitutional duties of the State, and the right to bear
firearm is to be construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties.
(Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004)
Sec. 6, Article II
The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
22
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The State should not use its money and coercive power to establish religion. It
should not support a particular religion. The State is prohibited from interfering with
purely ecclesiastical affairs. But it does not mean that there is total or absolute
separation. The better rule is symbiotic relations between the church and State.
¥say
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights.
3. Sec. 2 (5), Art. IX-C—religious sect cannot be registered as political party
4. Sec. 5 (2), Art. VI—no sectoral representative from the religious sector
5. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI—Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and
improvements, actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
6. Sec. 29 (2), Art. VI—No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid,
or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
Page 237/12/2008
denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher,
minister, or other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest,
preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
7. Sec. 3 (3), Art. XIV—At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians,
religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards in public elementary and
high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by the
religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong, without
additional cost to the Government.
8. Sec. 4 (2), Art. XIV—Filipino ownership requirement for educational institutions,
except those established by religious groups and mission boards.
Austria vs. NLRC and CPU Mission Corp. of the 7th Day Adventists, G.R. No.
124382, August 16, 1999, an ecclesiastical affair involves the relationship between the
church and its members and relates to matter of faith, religious doctrines, worship and
governance of the congregation. Examples of these affairs in which the State cannot
meddle are proceedings for excommunication, ordination of religious ministers,
administration of sacraments, and other activities to which is attached religious
significance. In this case, what is involved is the relationship of the church as an
employer and the minister as an employee. It is purely secular and has no relation
whatsoever with the practice of faith, worship or doctrine of the church.
STATE POLICIES
23
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Sec. 7, Article II
(Independent Foreign Policy)
The State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other
states the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.
The word “relations” covers the whole gamut of treaties and international
agreements and other kinds of intercourse. This is the closest reference to military
¥say
bases.
Sec. 8, Article II
(Policy of Freedom from Nuclear Weapons)
The Philippines, consistent with the national interest, adopts and pursues a
Page 247/12/2008
policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory.
Clearly, the ban is on nuclear arms—that is, the use and stockpiling of nuclear
weapons, devices, and parts thereof. And this includes not only possessing, controlling
and manufacturing nuclear weapons, but also nuclear test in our territory, as well as the
use of our territory as dumping ground for radioactive waste.
The provision, however, is not a ban on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Nor
is it a ban on all “nuclear-capable vessels.” For a vessel to be banned, it is not enough
that it is capable of carrying nuclear arms; it must actually carry nuclear arms.
Nuclear weapons, if stored in our territory, may invite threats of foreign invasion
and there is a danger to the life and limbs of the people because of the threat of
explosion.
Sec. 9, Article II
(Just and Dynamic Social Order)
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 of life for all.
It reflects a preoccupation with poverty as resulting from structures that mire the
people in a life of dependence.
24
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
(Social Justice)
The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.
(Read Sections 1 and 2 of Article XIII)
¥say
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments.
The Constitution covers all phases of national development but with more
emphasis not only on economic inequities but also on political and cultural inequities.
Page 257/12/2008
Sec. 11, Article II
(Personal Dignity and Human Rights)
The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights.
(Read Sections 17-19 of Article XIII)
25
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
up to the 6th month of pregnancy by allowing abortion at the discretion of the mother any
time during the first 6 months when it can be done without danger to the mother.
Page 267/12/2008
inherent incapacity, are in an unfavorable position vis-à-vis other parties.
People vs. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, October 7, 1998, RA 7610, which penalizes child
prostitution and other sexual abuses, was enacted in consonance with the policy of the
State to “provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse”, thus, the Court
grants the victim full vindication and protection granted under the law.
PT&T Co. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997, the SC held that the petitioner’s
26
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who
contracts marriage, runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination, which
is guaranteed all women workers under the Constitution. While a requirement that a
woman employee must remain unmarried may be justified as a “bona fide occupational
qualification” where the particular requirements of the job would demand the same,
discrimination against married women cannot be adopted by the employer as a general
principle.
¥say
Section 15, Article II
(Right to Health)
The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people and instill
health consciousness among them.
(Read Sections 11-13 of Article XIII as an aspect of Social Justice)
Page 277/12/2008
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.
Oposa vs. Factoran, Jr., 224 SCRA 792, it was held that the 34 minors duly joined by
their respective parents pleading the cause of “inter-generational responsibility” and
“inter-generational justice”, had a valid cause of action in questioning the grant of
Timber Licensing Agreements (TLAs) for commercial logging purposes. The minors filed
the action for themselves as representing “their generation as well as generations yet
unborn”. The SC, on the basis of Section 16, Article II linked with the right to health,
recognized a “right to a balanced and healthful ecology” and “the correlative duty to
refrain from impairing the environment”.
C&M Timber Corporation vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 111088, June 13, 1997, on the issue
that the “total log ban” is a new policy which should be applied prospectively and not
affect the rights of petitioner vested under the Timber Licensing Agreement (TLA), the
Sc held that this is not a new policy but a mere reiteration of the policy of conservation
and protection the right to a balanced and healthful ecology.
27
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In PRC vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004, while it is true that
the SC has upheld the constitutional right of every citizen to select a profession or
course of study subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
requirements, the exercise of this right may be regulated pursuant to the police power of
the State to safeguard health, morals, peace, education, order, safety and general
¥say
welfare. Thus, persons who desire to engage in the learned professions requiring
scientific or technical knowledge may be required to take an examination as a
prerequisite to engaging in their chosen careers. This regulation assumes particular
pertinence in the field of medicine, in order to protect the public from the potentially
deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance.
PMMS, Inc. vs. CA, 244 SCRA 770, the Court said that the requirement that a
school must first obtain government authorization before operating is based on the
State policy that educational programs and/or operations shall be of good quality and,
Page 287/12/2008
therefore, shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to curricula, teaching
staff, physical plant and facilities and administrative and management viability.
In the case of Bernardo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122917, July 12, 1999, the SC
held that the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons mandates that qualified disabled
persons be granted the same terms and conditions of employment as qualified able-
bodied employees; thus, once hey have attained the status of regular workers, they
should be accorded all the benefits granted by law, notwithstanding written or verbal
contracts to the contrary. This treatment is rooted not merely in charity or
accommodation, but in justice for all.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The Constitution does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,
goods and services. It contemplates neither “economic seclusion” nor “mendicancy in
the international community”.
Aside from envisioning a trade policy based on “equality and reciprocity”, the
fundamental law encourages industries that are “competitive in both domestic and
foreign markets,” thereby demonstrating a clear policy against a sheltered domestic
¥say
trade environment, but one in favor of the gradual development of robust industries that
can compete with the best in the foreign markets. (Tañada vs. Angara, 272 SCRA 18)
Page 297/12/2008
Doctrine of Free Enterprise—
(See the case of Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines vs. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343)
29
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral
organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.
(Read Sections 15-16 of Article XIII)
Page 307/12/2008
Section 25, Article II
The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments.
(Read Article X)
Basco vs. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52, The SC held that the local autonomy under the
1987 Constitution simply means “decentralization”, and does not make the local
governments sovereign within the State or an imperium in imperio.
Lina vs. Pano, G.R. No. 129093, August 30, 2001, the Sc said that the basic
relationship between the national legislature and the local government units has not
been enfeebled by the new provisions in the Constitution strengthening the policy of
local autonomy. Without meaning to detract from that policy, Congress retains control of
the LGUs although in a significantly reduced degree now under our previous
Constitutions. The power to create still includes the power to destroy. The power to
30
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
grant still includes the power to withhold or recall. True there are notable innovations in
the Constitution, like the direct conferment on the LGUs of the power to tax which
cannot now be withdrawn by mere statute. By and large, however, the national
legislature is still the principal of LGUs, which cannot defy its will or modify or violate it.
Ours is still a unitary form of government, not a federal state. Being so, any form of
autonomy granted to local governments will necessarily be limited and confined within
the extent allowed by the central authority.
¥say
Judge Dadole vs. COA, G.R. No. 125350, December 3, 2002, even as we recognize
that the Constitution guarantees autonomy to LGUs, the exercise of local autonomy
remains subject to the power of control by Congress and the power of general
supervision by the President. xxx The President can only interfere in the affairs and
activities of a LGU if he finds that the latter had acted contrary to law. The President or
any of his alter egos, cannot interfere in local affairs as long as the concerned LGU acts
within the parameters of the law and the Constitution. Any directive, therefore, by the
President or any of his alter egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming
Page 317/12/2008
judgment on local affairs of a LGU is a patent nullity, because it violates the principle of
local autonomy, as well as the doctrine of separation of powers of the executive and
legislative departments in governing municipal corporations.
Pamatong vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004, the SC said that this
provision does not bestow a right to seek the Presidency; it does not contain a judicially
enforceable constitutional right and merely specifies a guideline for legislative action.
The provision is not intended to compel the State to enact positive measures that would
accommodate as many as possible into public office. The privilege may be subjected to
limitations. One such valid limitation is the provision of the Omnibus Election Code on
nuisance candidates.
31
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS
Page 327/12/2008
no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other
departments.
In Maceda vs. Vasquez, 221 SCRA 464, in the absence of any administrative
action taken against the RTC Judge by the SC with regard to the former’s certificate of
service, the investigation conducted by the Ombudsman encroaches into the SC’s
power of administrative supervision over all courts and its personnel, in violation of the
32
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Principle of Blending of Powers: Instances when powers are not confined exclusively
within one department but are assigned to or shared by several departments.
¥say
exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has been
constitutionally conferred upon the department claiming its exercise—since the
conferment is usually done expressly. However, even in the absence of express
conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified under the doctrine of
necessary implication. The grant of express power carried with it all other powers that
may be reasonably inferred from it.
Justiciable question- implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act
or omission violative of such right, and a remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said
Page 337/12/2008
breach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642)
1. Police Power
2. Power of Eminent Domain
3. Power of Taxation
Similarities:
1. Inherent in the State, exercised even without need of express constitutional
grant.
2. Necessary and indispensable; State cannot be effective without them.
3. Methods by which State interferes with private property.
4. Presupposes equivalent compensation.
5. Exercised primarily by the legislature.
Distinctions:
Police Power Eminent Domain Taxation
Regulates both liberty and Affects property rights affects property rights
property
33
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
thus be destroyed
Page 347/12/2008
power prevails over specific constitutional guarantees. The courts may annul the
improvident exercise of police power.
These powers must not be exercised arbitrarily, to the prejudice of Bill of Rights.
In Ericta vs. City Government of Quezon City, 122 SCRA 759, the City
Government of QC was not exercising police power when they required private
cemetery owners to reserve 6% of the burial lots for pauper’s burial ground. The SC
held that in police power, the property to be taken is to be destroyed. The 6% are
private property of the cemetery owners. This is a taking of private property. Sec. 9, Art.
III: “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.”
Clearly, this is an invalid exercise of police power. The City was made to pay the
owners just compensation.
34
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
invalid, because the COMELEC would not pay for the space to be given to it by the
newspapers.
¥say
convert the private property to public use.
Page 357/12/2008
POLICE POWER—
It is the power of promoting public welfare by restraining and regulating the use
of liberty and property.
It is the power vested by the Constitution in the legislature to make, ordain, and
establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances,
either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the Constitution, as they shall judge to
be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and for the subjects of the same.
The power is plenary and its scope is vast and pervasive, reaching and justifying
measures for public health, public safety, public morals, and the general welfare.
It is the power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, morals, peace,
education, good order or safety and general welfare of the people (now common good).
(Binay vs. Domingo, 201 SCRA 508)
It has been described as “the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of
powers, extending as it does to all the great public needs.” It is the power vested in the
legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable
laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the
Constitution, as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth,
and for the subjects of the same. (Carlos Superdrug Corp. vs. DSWD, G.R. No.
166494, June 29, 2007)
Cabrera vs. Lapid, G.R. No. 129098, December 6, 2006, a careful reading of the
questioned Resolution reveals that the Ombudsman dismissed petitioner’s criminal
35
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
complaint because respondents had validly resorted to the police power of the State
when they effected the demolition of the illegal fishpond in question following the
declaration thereof as a nuisance per se. in the words of the Ombudsman, “those who
participated in the blasting of the subject fishpond were only impelled by their desire to
serve the best interest of the general public; for the good and the highest good.
Requisites (Limitations):
1. Lawful subject—the interests of the public in general as distinguished from
¥say
those of a particular class, require the exercise of this power.
2. Lawful means—the means employed are reasonably for the accomplishment of
the purpose, and not unduly oppressive on individuals.
“Affected with public interest”—an industry is subject to control for the public
good; it has been considered as the equivalent of “subject to the exercise of police
power”.
Page 367/12/2008
Construction: construed strictly and any doubt must be resolved against the grant.
Scope/Characteristics:
It is the most pervasive, least limitable, and the most demanding of the three
powers. The justification is found in: salus populi est suprema lex (the welfare of the
people is the supreme law) and sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas (use your property
so as not to impair others).
36
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
to protect the public from the potentially dead effects of incompetence and
ignorance.
In Chavez vs. Romulo, 431 SCRA 534, the right to bear arms is merely
statutory privilege. The license to carry firearm is neither a property nor a property right.
Neither does it create a vested right. A permit to carry outside one’s residence may be
revoked at any time. Even if it were a property right, it cannot be considered as absolute
as to be beyond the reach of the police power.
¥say
Who may exercise police power?
The power is inherently vested in Congress. However, they may validly delegate
this power to the following:
1. the President
2. administrative bodies—public and quasi-public corporations
3. the lawmaking bodies of local government units
Local government units exercise the power under the general welfare clause.
Page 377/12/2008
CANORECO vs. Torres, G.R. no. 127249, February 27, 1998, while police
power may be delegated to the President by law, RA 6939 and PD 260, as amended,
do not authorize the President or any other administrative body, to take over the internal
management of a cooperative. Accordingly, Memorandum Order No. 409, issued by the
President, constituting an ad hoc committee to temporarily take over and manage the
affairs of CANORECO is invalid.
In MMDA vs. Bel-Air Village Association, G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000,
there is no provision in RA 7924 that empowers the MMDA or its council to “enact
ordinance, approve resolutions and appropriate funds for the general welfare” of the
inhabitants of Metro Manila. Thus, MMDA may not order the opening of Neptune St. in
the Bel-Air Subdivision to public traffic, as it does not possess delegated police power.
Section 11, Article X—the Congress may, by law, create special metropolitan
political subdivisions, subject to a plebiscite as set forth in Section 10 hereof. The
component cities and municipalities shall retain their basic autonomy and shall be
entitled to their own local executives and legislative assemblies. The jurisdiction of the
metropolitan authority that will thereby be created shall be limited to basic services
requiring coordination.
37
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
However, in MMDA vs. Garin, G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005, although the
law (RA 7924) does not grant the MMDA the power to confiscate and suspend or
revoke drivers’ licenses without need of any legislative enactment, the same law vests
the MMDA the duty to enforce existing traffic rules and regulations. Thus, where there is
a traffic law or regulation validly enacted by the legislature or those agencies to whom
legislative power has been delegated, the MMDA is not precluded—and in fact is duty-
bound—to confiscate and suspend or revoke drivers’ licenses in the exercise of its
¥say
mandate of transport and traffic management, as well as the administration and
implementation of all traffic enforcement operations, traffic engineering services and
traffic education programs.
Additional Limitations (When exercised by delegate):
a. express grant by law
b. within territorial limits (for local government units, except when exercised to
protect water supply)
c. must not be contrary to law
Page 387/12/2008
For municipal ordinance to be valid:
1. it must not contravene the Constitution or any statute;
2. it must not be unfair or oppressive;
3. it must not be partial or discriminatory;
4. it must not prohibit, but may regulate, trade;
5. it must not be unreasonable; and
6. it must be general in application and consistent with public policy.
In City of Manila vs. Judge Laguio, G.R. No. 118127, April 12, 2005, the SC
declared as an invalid exercise of the police power the City of Manila Ordinance No.
7783, which prohibited “the establishment or operation of businesses providing certain
forms of amusement, entertainment, services and facilities in the Ermita-Malate area”,
for being contrary to the Constitution, infringing the guarantees of due process and
equal protection of the laws.
In Acebedo Optical Company, Inc. vs. CA, 329 SCRA 314 (2000), the
issuance of business licenses and permits by a municipality or city is essentially
38
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
regulatory in nature. The authority, which devolved upon local government units, to
issue or grant such licenses or permits, is essentially in the exercise of the police power
of the State within the contemplation of the general welfare clause of the LGC.
¥say
out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the
maximum area allowed, there is also taking under the power of eminent domain. The
taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is
the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial
rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of rights provides
that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of
law.” The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law.
The exercise of power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the
Page 397/12/2008
taking of private property. [Roxas and Co., vs. CA, 321 SCRA 106 (1999)]
Republic vs. Manila Electric Company, G.R. No. 141314, November 15,
2002, the regulation of rates to be charged by public utilities is founded upon the police
power of the State and statutes prescribing rules for the control and regulations of public
utilities are a valid exercise thereof. When a private property is used for a public
purpose and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be juris privati only and
becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good.
Submission to regulation may be withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as
long as the use of the property is continued, the same is subject to public regulation.
In regulating rates charged by public utilities, the State protects the public against
arbitrary and excessive rates while maintaining the efficiency and quality of services
rendered. However, the power to regulate rates does not give the State the right to
prescribe rates which are so low as to deprive the public utility of a reasonable return on
investment.
Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section 2 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation in
every province or city to provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELEC
space, was held to be invalid exercise of police power there being no showing of the
existence of national emergency or imperious public necessity for the taking of print
39
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
space, nor that the resolution was the only reasonable and calibrated response to such
necessity.
Public purpose and use has broader concept now. It now includes VICARIOUS
BENEFITS that society may derive from a particular measure.
e.g. CONCERN FOR THE POOR—SC recognized this as one for public purpose
and use.
¥say
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN— also known as the power of expropriation
The power of eminent domain is the power of the State to forcibly take private
property for public use upon payment of just compensation.
Page 407/12/2008
It is government’s right to appropriate, in the nature of a compulsory sale to the
State, private property for public use or purpose. (Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 586)
The ultimate right of the sovereign power to appropriate, not only the public, but
even the private property of all citizens within the territorial sovereignty, for public
purpose.
the property is converted to public use there is no need for the conversion to
public use
40
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Object of Expropriation:
1. anything that comes under the dominion of man
2. real, personal, tangible and intangible
3. property right
4. churches and other religious properties
5. property already devoted to public use
¥say
Who may exercise?
Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid delegation to:
1. the President;
2. lawmaking bodies of LGUs;
3. administrative bodies—public and quasi-public corporations
4. Private enterprises performing public services.
In the case of Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, the power of
Page 417/12/2008
eminent domain must, by enabling law, be delegated to local governments by the
national legislature, and thus, can only be as broad as the real authority would want it to
be. The grant of the power to local government units under RA 7160 cannot be
understood as equal to the pervasive and all encompassing power vested in the
legislative branch of government.
Filstream Int’l Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716—the exercise of the power of
eminent domain is clearly superior to the final and executor judgment rendered by the
court in an ejectment case.
41
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Requisites:
1. Necessity—when exercised by:
a. Congress—it is a political question; (Municipality of Meycauayan,
¥say
Bulacan vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 640)
b. Delegate—the determination of whether there is a genuine necessity for
the exercise is a justiceable question (Republic vs. La Orden de Po.
Benedictinos, 1 SCRA 649).
The RTC has the power to inquire to the legality of the exercise of the right of
eminent domain and to determine whether there is a genuine necessity for it (Bardillon
vs. Brgy. Masili of Calamba, Laguna, G.R. No. 146886, April 30, 2003).
Page 427/12/2008
Lagcao vs. Judge Labra, G.R. No. 155746, October 13, 2004—there was no
showing at all why petitioners’ property was singled out for expropriation by the city
ordinance or what necessity impelled the particular choice or selection. The ordinance
stated no reason for the choice of petitioners’ property as the site of a socialized
housing project.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
or injuriously affected;
e. Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
(Republic vs. Castelvi, 58 SCRA 336)
The taking of private property may include the impairment of the use of the
property for which it was intended. In US vs. Causby, 328 US 256, the flight of planes
from a nearby military airport over plaintiff’s property below the navigable airspace
Page 437/12/2008
resulting in the ruin of plaintiff’s chicken farm was considered compensable taking. So
also were low landing and take-off flights which made nearby residential area unlivable
(Griggs vs. Allegheny County, 369 US 84). This is taking in the constitutional sense.
CANORECO vs. CA, G.R. No. 109338, November 20, 2000, The owner of the
property cut the electric lines alleging that it impaired him of the use of his property. The
SC held that the property owner was not justified in cutting the electric lines. His
property becomes the servient estate subject to the encumbrance, and the acquisition
of an easement of right of way filed by an electric power company for the construction of
transmission lines falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain. However,
43
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
since there was an impairment of the use of the property, he is entitled to the payment
of just compensation.
The establishment of an easement is a form of compensable taking. In
NAPOCOR vs. Sps. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 60077, January 18, 1991, the owner of the
land was awarded full compensation against the NAPOCOR’s argument that the owners
were not totally deprived of the use of the land and could still plant the same crops as
long as they did not come into contact with the wires. The Court said: “the right of way
easement perpetually deprives defendants of their proprietary rights as manifested by
¥say
the imposition by the plaintiff upon defendants that below said transmission lines no
plant higher than 3 meters is allowed. Furthermore, because of the high-tension current
conveyed through the transmission lines, danger to life and limbs that may be caused
beneath said wires cannot altogether be discounted, and to cap it all, plaintiff only pays
the fee to defendant once, while the latter shall continually pay the taxes due on said
affected portion of their property.
In People vs. Fajardo, 104 Phil. 44, a municipal ordinance prohibiting a building
Page 447/12/2008
which would impair the view of the plaza from the highway was considered taking. The
property owner was held to be entitled to payment of just compensation.
In Velarma vs. CA, 252 SCRA 400, the owner of the property can recover
possession of the property from squatters, even if he agreed to transfer the property to
the Government, until the transfer is consummated or the expropriation case is filed.
The private property is taken in order to The purpose of taking is to destroy the
convert it to public use property because it is harmful or
obnoxious to the public.
Philippine Press Institute (PPI) vs. COMELEC, 244 SCRA 272, Section 2 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 2772, which mandates newspapers of general circulation in
every province or city to provide free print space of not less than ½ page as COMELEC
space, was held to be an exercise of power of eminent domain, albeit invalid, because
the COMELEC would not pay for the space to be given to it by the newspapers.
44
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
TELEBAP, Inc. vs. COMELEC, 289 SCRA 1998, the constitutionality of Sec. 92
of BP 881 (requiring radio and television station owners and operators to give to the
COMELEC radio and television time free of charge) was challenged on the ground that
it violated the due process clause and the eminent domain provision of the Constitution
by taking airtime from radio and television broadcasting stations without payment of just
compensation. The SC held that all broadcasting, whether by radio or by television
stations, is licensed by the government. Airwaves frequencies have to be allocated as
there are more individuals who want to broadcast than there frequencies to assign. A
¥say
franchise is thus a privilege subject, among other things, to amendment by Congress in
accordance with the constitutional provision that “any such franchise or right granted x x
x shall be subject to amendment, alteration or repeal by the Congress when the
common good so requires” (Art. XII, Sec.11).
In the granting of the privilege to operate broadcast stations and thereafter
supervising radio and television stations, the State spends considerable public funds in
licensing and supervising such stations. It would be strange if it cannot even require the
licensees to render public service by giving free airtime. x x x As radio and television
Page 457/12/2008
broadcast stations do not own the airwaves, no private property is taken by the
requirement that they provide airtime to the COMELEC.
Shifting argument alleged in TELEBAP: both PPI and TELEBAP are media of communication
and information. Equal protection clause was raised as an issue. The SC ruled that equal
protection clause does not guarantee absolute equality. There may be classification. Persons or
things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated differently if there is a basis for
valid classification.
45
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240, public use is whatever
may be beneficially employed for the general welfare.
It has been broadened to include not only uses directly available to the public but
also those which redound to their indirect benefit; that only a few would actually benefit
from the expropriation of the property does not necessarily diminish the essence and
character of public use. (Manosca vs. CA, 252 SCRA 412)
¥say
In Filstream Int’l Inc. vs. CA, 284 SCRA 716, the fact that the property is less
than ½ hectare and that only a few could actually benefit from the expropriation does
not diminish its public use character, inasmuch as “public use” now includes the broader
notion of indirect public benefit or advantage, including, in particular, urban land reform
and housing.
Page 467/12/2008
may expropriate private property for public use, or purpose, or welfare, for the benefit of
the poor and the landless. Thus, in Moday vs. CA, 268 SCRA 568, the SC held that the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur was without authority to disapprove
Bunawan Municipal Resolution No. 43-89 because, clearly, the Municipality of Bunawan
has authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and its Sanggguniang Bayan the
capacity to promulgate the assailed resolution.
In Francia, Jr. vs. Municipality of Meycauayan, G.R. No. 170432, March 24,
2008, the Supreme Court held that the determination of a public purpose for the
expropriated property is not a condition precedent before a court may issue a writ of
possession. Once the requisite in Sec. 19 of the Local Government Code are satisfied,
the issuance of the writ becomes a ministerial matter for the court.
5. Just Compensation—the full and fair market value of the property taken; it is
the fair market value of the property. It is settled that the market value of the
46
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
property is “that sum of money which a person, desirous but not compelled to
buy, and an owner, willing but not compelled to sell, would agree on a price to be
given and received therefor.”
¥say
The determination of just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial
function and factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and reviewable only
when the case falls within the recognized exceptions. (NAPOCOR vs. San Pedro, G.R.
No. 170945, September 26, 2006)
Land Bank vs. CA (and DAR vs. CA), 249 SCRA 149—Sec. 16(e), RA 6657—
the deposit of compensation must be in “cash” or in “Land Bank bonds” not in any other
Page 477/12/2008
form, and certainly not in a “trust account”.
Basic/market value—the price that may be agreed upon by the parties willing but not
compelled to enter into a contract of sale.
Factors to be considered:
Cost of acquisition Actual or potential uses
47
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Current value of like properties in particular case: size of lands, shape, location
and tax declaration
¥say
better location, such as fronting a street where it used to be an interior lot.
Association of Small Landowners vs. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 (1989)— the power of
eminent domain could be used as an implement of police power. The expressed
objective of the law was the promotion of the welfare of the farmers, which came clearly
under the police power of the state. To achieve this purpose, the law provided for the
expropriation of agricultural lands (subject to minimum retention limits for the
landowners) to be distributed among the landless peasantry.
Page 487/12/2008
DARAB determines just compensation (exception to the general rule that courts decide
the value)
DAR may make initial valuation; owner goes to court if not satisfied.
In Republic vs. Salem Investment Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 137569, June 23,
2000, the Supreme Court held that it is only upon payment of just compensation that
title over the property passes to the government. Therefore, until the action for
expropriation has been completed and terminated, ownership over the property being
expropriated remains with the registered owner. Consequently, the latter can exercise
all rights pertaining to an owner, including the right to dispose of his property, subject to
the power of the State ultimately to acquire it through expropriation.
The Dela Ramas make much of the fact that ownership of the land was
transferred to the government because the equitable and the beneficial title were
already acquired by it in 1983, leaving them with only the naked title. However, xxx the
recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the
owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of just compensation.
48
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Title to the property shall not be transferred until after actual payment of just
compensation is made to the owner.
¥say
Genuine Necessity—
National legislation—question of necessity is POLITICAL; judiciary has no power
to inquire.
Delegate—liberally in favor of the private property owner; judiciary can inquire
into whether the authority conferred upon such delegate correctly and properly
exercised/ whether expropriation contemplated by the delegate necessary or wise.
Page 497/12/2008
proceedings, cannot bar the right of the State or its agents to expropriate private
property. The very nature of eminent domain, as an inherent power of the State,
dictates that the right to exercise the power be absolute and unfettered even by a prior
judgment or res judicata. The scope of eminent domain is plenary and, like police
power, can “reach every form of property which the State might need for public use”. All
separate interests of individuals in property are held of the government under this tacit
agreement or implied reservation. Notwithstanding the grant to individuals, the eminent
domain, the highest and most exact idea of property, remains in the government, or in
the aggregate body of the people in their sovereign capacity; and they have the right to
resume the possession of the property whenever the public interest requires it. Thus,
the State or its authorized agents cannot be forever barred from exercising said right by
reason alone of previous non-compliance with any legal requirement.
While the principle of res judicata does not denigrate the right of the State to
exercise eminent domain, it does not apply to specific issues decided in a previous
case. For example, a final judgment dismissing an expropriation suit on the ground that
there was no prior offer precludes another suit raising the same issue; it cannot,
however, bar the State or its agent, from thereafter complying with this requirement, as
prescribed by law, and subsequently exercising its power of eminent domain over the
same property. [Municipality of Parañaque vs. V.M. Realty Corp., 292 SCRA 678
(1998)]
49
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
When may the property owner be entitled to the return of the expropriated
property in eminent domain cases?
In Provincial Government of Sorsogon vs. Villaroya, the unpaid landowners were
allowed the alternative remedy of recovery of the property. The Court ruled that “under
ordinary circumstances, immediate return to the owners of the unpaid property is the
obvious remedy.”
However, in cases where land is taken for public use, public interest must be
considered. (Estate of Salud Jimenez vs. PEZA, 349 SCRA 240)
¥say
Right of landowner in case of non-payment of just compensation—as a rule, it
does not entitle the landowners to recover possession of the expropriated lots, but only
to demand payment of the fair market value of the property. (Republic vs. CA, G.R.
No. 146587, July 2, 2002; Reyes vs. NHA, G.R. No. 147511, January 20, 2003).
However, in RP vs. Vicente Lim, G.R. No. 161656, June 29, 2005, the SC said
Page 507/12/2008
that the facts of the case do not justify the application of the rule. In this case, the
Republic was ordered to pay just compensation twice; the first was in the expropriation
proceedings, and the second, in the action for recovery of possession. Fifty-seven (57)
years have passed since then. The Court construed the Republic’s failure to pay just
compensation as a deliberate refusal on its part. Under such circumstances, recovery of
possession is in order. It was then held that where the government failed to pay just
compensation within 5 years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation
proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover possession of their
property.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
property shall revert to the former owner, then the former owner can re-acquire the
property. In this case, the terms of the judgment in the expropriation case were very
clear and unequivocal, granting title to the lot in fee simple to the Republic. No condition
on the right to repurchase was imposed. (Mactan-Cebu International Airport
Authority vs. CA, G.R. No. 139495, Novermber 27, 2000)
Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 146587, July 2, 2002, in arguing for the return of
their property on the basis of non-payment, respondents ignored the fact that the right of
¥say
the expropriatory authority is far from that of an unpaid seller in ordinary sales to which
the remedy is rescission may perhaps apply. Expropriation is an in rem proceeding, and
after condemnation, the paramount title is in the public under a new and independent
title.
Page 517/12/2008
POWER OF TAXATION—is the power to demand from the members of society their
proportionate share/contribution in the maintenance of the government.
51
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
It is the power by which the State raises revenue to defray the necessary
expenses of the Government.
Scope: covers persons, property or occupation to be taxed within the taxing jurisdiction.
It is so pervasive; it reaches even the citizens abroad and their income outside the
Philippines; all the income earned in the Philippines by a citizen or alien.
¥say
Importance of Taxation:
1. No constitutional government can exist without it;
2. It is one great power upon which the whole national fabric is based;
3. It is necessary for the existence and prosperity of the nation; and
4. It is the lifeblood of the nation.
Who may exercise? Generally, the legislature, but also upon valid delegation:
Page 527/12/2008
1. Lawmaking bodies of LGUs (Sec. 5, Art. X);
2. President (limited extent-delegated tariff powers), under Sec. 28 (2), Art. VI of
the Constitution or as an incident of emergency powers that Congress may
grant to him under Sec. 23 (2), art. VI.
Purpose: unavoidable obligation of the government to protect the people and extend
them benefits in the form of public projects and services.
Requisites:
1. It must be for public purpose;
2. It shall be uniform;
3. Person or property taxed shall be within the jurisdiction of the taxing authority;
4. In assessment & collection, notice and hearing shall be provided.
52
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
2. Non-delegability of power;
3. Territoriality or Situs of taxation;
4. Exemption of government from taxation;
5. International comity—generally accepted principles of international law
Constitutional limitations:
1. Due process of law—tax should not be confiscatory.
Due process does not require previous notice and hearing before a law
¥say
prescribing fixed/specific taxes on certain articles may be enacted.
If the tax to be collected is to be based on the value of the taxable property—ad
valorem tax—the taxpayer is entitled to be notified of the assessment proceeding
and to be heard on the correct valuation.
2. Equal protection of law—taxes should be uniform and equitable.
3. Uniformity—persons/things belonging to the same class shall be taxed at the
same rate
Equitability—taxes should be apportioned among the people according to their
Page 537/12/2008
capacity to pay
Progressivity—
4. Non-impairment of contracts
5. Non-imprisonment for non-payment of poll tax
6. Revenue and tariff bills must originate in the HOR
7. Non-infringement of religious freedom
8. Delegation of legislative authority to the President to fix tariff rates, import and
export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues
9. Tax exemption of properties actually, directly and exclusively used for religious,
charitable and educational purposes
10. Majority vote of all the members of Congress required in case of legislative
grant of tax exemptions
11. Non-impairment of the SC’s jurisdiction in tax cases
12. Tax exemption of revenues and assets of, including grants, endowments,
donations, or contributions to, educational institutions.
53
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Double taxation is allowed by law. However, it will not be allowed if the same will
result in violation of the equal protection clause. What is prohibited is direct double
taxation.
Taxes—the enforced proportional contributions from persons and property levied by the
¥say
State by virtue of its sovereignty for the support of the government and for all public
needs.
TAX LICENSE
1. AS TO BASIS
Power of taxation—to raise revenue Police power—to regulate
2. AS TO LIMITATION
Page 547/12/2008
Rate or amount to be collected is unlimited Amount is limited to cost of: a)issuing the
provided it is not confiscatory license; and b)necessary inspection of
police surveillance
3. AS TO OBJECT
Imposed on persons or property Paid for privilege of doing something but
privilege is revocable
4. AS TO EFFECT OF NON-PAYMENT
Business or activity does not become Business becomes illegal
illegal
Tax Debt
due to the government in its sovereign due to the government in its corporate
capacity capacity
Taxes cannot be subject to off-setting or compensation for the simple reason that the
government and the taxpayers are not creditors and debtors of each other.
(Philex Mining Corp. vs. CIR, 294 SCRA 687)
Tax exemptions:
-discretion of the legislature
1. Sec. 28 (4), Art. VI
2. Sec. 28 (3), Art. VI
54
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In Lladoc vs. CIR, 14 SCRA 292, a parish priest accepted a donation to be used
for the construction of a church. The money was spent for the purpose. The CIR
¥say
imposed tax. The objection was based on constitutional exemption of church properties
from taxes. The SC rejected. Exemption referred only to property taxes imposed on
lands, buildings and improvements used for religious purposes. The tax in this case is
not an ad valorem tax on the church itself but an excise tax imposed on the priest (not
on the properties) for his exercise of the privilege to accept the donation.
Page 557/12/2008
under certain circumstances.
Article III
BILL OF RIGHTS
55
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
All the powers of the government (police power, power of eminent domain and power
of taxation) are limited by the Bill of Rights.
Classification of Rights:
1. Political Rights—granted by law to members of a community in relation to their
direct or indirect participation in the establishment or administration of
government.
¥say
2. Civil Rights—rights which municipal law will enforce at the instance of private
individuals for the purpose of securing them the enjoyment of their means of
happiness.
3. Social and Economic Rights—these are the rights which generally require
implementing legislation. (Article XIII)
Page 567/12/2008
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property is recognized. Because these freedoms are “delicate and
vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society” and the “threat of
sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of
sanctions,” they “need breathing space to survive,” permitting government
regulation only “with narrow specificity.”
Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are
imprescriptible.
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly
occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our
civil and political institutions; and such priority “gives these liberties the sanctity and the
sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.”
The superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the fact
that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means employed by the
law and its object or purpose—that the law is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory
nor oppressive—would suffice to validate a law which restricts or impairs
property rights.
On the other hand, a constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a
more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of a
substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
LIMITATIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY
¥say
limiting the exercise of these powers by imposing on the State the obligation to protect
individual rights. The Bill of Rights is addressed to the State, notably the government,
telling it what it cannot do to the individual.
Applies to all persons, without regard to any difference in race, color or nationality
Page 577/12/2008
Artificial persons—covered but only insofar as their property is concerned.
Extends to aliens
Life—includes the right of an individual to his body in its completeness, free from
dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which make life
enjoyable.
Liberty—includes the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary personal
restraint or servitude. x x x It includes the right of the citizen to be free to use his
faculties in all lawful ways. (Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660)
Property—is anything that come under the right of ownership and be the subject of
contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it includes the right to
secure, use and dispose of them.
Public office is not a property which one may acquire a vested right, it is
nevertheless a protected right. (Bince vs. COMELEC, 218 SCRA 782)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
c. Opportunity to be heard; and
d. Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing and based on evidence
adduced.
Impartial Court or Tribunal—Judges must not only be impartial but must also
appear to be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will
be just.
Page 587/12/2008
decision against petitioner. When petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, the
same Jacobo Clave, but this time acting as Presidential Executive Assistant, upheld his
own earlier decision. The SC held that this violates fundamental fairness required by
due process. A public officer who decided the case should not be the same person to
decide it on appeal because he cannot be an impartial judge.
People vs. Mendenilla (2001), judges have as much interest as counsel in the
orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence, and have the duty to ask questions
that would elicit the facts on the issues involved, clarify ambiguous remarks by
witnesses and address the points overlooked by counsel.
Questions which merely clear up dubious points and elicit relevant evidence are
within the prerogative of a judge to ask.
Sec. 14 (1), Art. III—No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law. ---This is procedural due process in criminal cases
58
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
2. Substantive Due Process—it requires that the law itself, not merely the
procedures by which the law would be enforced, is fair, reasonable and just.
This serves as a restriction on the government’s law and rule-making powers; a
prohibition of arbitrary laws.
¥say
As a general rule, when the State acts to interfere with life, liberty, or property,
the presumption is that the action is valid. In rare cases, as in “prior restraint”,
there is a presumption of invalidity.
Requisites:
a. Interest of the public;
b. Means employed are reasonably necessary for accomplishment of purpose
and not unduly oppressive.
The legislature may not, under the guise of protecting the public interest,
Page 597/12/2008
arbitrarily interfere with private business or impose unusual and unnecessary
restrictions upon lawful occupations.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of
protected freedoms.
“On its face” invalidation of statutes results in striking them down entirely on the
ground that they might be applied to parties not before the Court whose activities are
¥say
constitutionally protected. It constitutes a departure from the case and controversy
requirement of the Constitution and permits decisions to be made without concrete
factual settings and in sterile abstract contexts.
Tanada vs. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446 (1986), Motion for reconsideration. xxx
[T]he clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to
the requirement of publication itself, w/c cannot in any event be omitted. This clause
does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon
approval, or on any other date, w/o its previous publication.
Page 607/12/2008
Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion
provide that the usual 15-day period shall be shortened or extended.
It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be
dispensed w/ altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process
insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern
it.
Conclusive presumption of knowledge of the law.-- The conclusive presumption that
every person knows the law presupposes that the law has been published if the
presumption is to have any legal justification at all.
The term laws should refer to all laws and not only to those of general
application, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are
some that do not apply to them directly. An example is a law granting citizenship to a
particular individual, like a relative of Pres. Marcos who was decreed instant
naturalization.
RULE: All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall
be published as a condition for their effectivity, w/c shall begin 15 days after publication
unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature.
Coverage: Covered by this rule are PDs and EOs promulgated by the Pres. in
the exercise of legislative powers. Administrative rules and regulations must also be
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid
delegation.
60
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, i.e., regulating only
the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published.
Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by
administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their duties.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is
to inform the public of the contents of the laws. The mere mention of the number
of the PD, the title of such decree, its whereabouts, the supposed date of
effectivity, and in a mere supplement of the OG cannot satisfy the publication
¥say
requirement. This is not even substantial compliance.
Notes: In the original case Tanada vs. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985), the SC ruled that
as a matter of substantive due process, any law must be published before the people can be
expected to observe them. But, according to a split decision, publication need not be made
in the Official Gazette. It is enough that it be published in a newspaper of general circulation.
Page 617/12/2008
After the EDSA revolution, upon the reconstitution of the SC, the original
judgment was reconsidered, and the SC now ruled that publication must be made in the
Official Gazette, pursuant to CA 638 and the Civil Code, unless a law "provides otherwise"
that is, a different mode of publication.
What must be published are (1) all laws of general application, and even those not of
general application like (2) private laws affecting only particular individuals, e.g., legislative
grant of citizenship, (3) laws of local application, and (4) rules and regulations of a
substantive character. This means not only the title but the entire law. When? Forthwith, that
is, immediately. Where? Only in the Official Gazette
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion (2000), an extraditee is not entitled to notice and
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. PD 1069 affords an
extraditee sufficient opportunity to meet the evidence against him once the petition is
filed in court. During the evaluation stage, right to know is withheld to accommodate the
more compelling interest of the State—to prevent escape of potential extradite which
may be precipitated by premature information on the basis of the request for extradition.
Roxas vs. Vasquez (2001), lack of notice to, participation of complainants at the
REINVESTIGATION does not render the resolution of the Ombudsman null and void.
(But in preliminary investigation, their participation is needed.)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
hearing. NTC replied that the order was merely interlocutory. The SC held that fixing
rates is quasi-judicial in nature. Hence, unlike in the exercise of quasi-legislative power,
it must be preceded by a hearing. The fact of the order being merely interlocutory does
not alter the situation because for all practical purposes it is final as to the period
covered.
BUT, in Radio Communications vs. NTC (1990)—the Court upheld the temporary
rates granted by the NTC asserting that the law allows the NTC to approve temporary
rate requested by public service agency provided hearings are held within 30 days
¥say
thereafter.
As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the fundamental requirements of procedural
due process, are essential only when an administrative body exercises its QUASI-
JUDICIAL function.
In the exercise of its EXECUTIVE or LEGISLATIVE functions, such as issuing rules and
regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and
hearing.
Page 627/12/2008
Suntay vs. People (1957)—the passport of a person sought for the commission of a
crime may be cancelled without notice and hearing.
Equitable Banking Corp. vs. Calderon, G.R. No. 156168, December 14, 2004, the Sc
ruled that no malice or bad faith attended the Bank’s dishonor of Calderon’s credit card,
inasmuch as the dishonor was justified under its Credit Card Agreement which provided
that the cardholder agreed not to exceed his approved credit limit, otherwise the card
privilege would be automatically suspended without notice to the cardholder.
Appeal and due process—
Appeal is not a natural right nor is it a part of due process; generally, it may be
allowed or denied by the legislature in its discretion. But where the Constitution gives a
person the right to appeal, denial of the right to appeal constitutes a violation of due
process. Where there is statutory grant of the right to appeal, denial of that remedy also
constitutes a denial of due process.
Preliminary Investigation and due process—
Preliminary investigation is not a constitutional right, but is merely a right
conferred by statute (Serapio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148468, January 28,
2003). It may be waived expressly or by failure to invoke it (Benedicto vs. CA, G.R.
No. 125359, September 4, 2001). The right may be forfeited by inaction, and cannot be
invoked for the first time on appeal (People vs. Lagao, G.R. No. 118457, April 8,
1997).
Go vs. CA, 206 SCRA 138, when there is statutory grant of the right to
preliminary investigation, denial of the same is an infringement of the due process
clause. The right to preliminary investigation is substantive, not merely formal or
62
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
technical. To deny it to the petitioner would deprive him of the full measure of his right to
due process. (Yusop vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 138859-60, February 22, 2001)
Prejudicial Publicity—
To warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation and proof
that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by the
barrage of publicity. Petitioners cannot just rely on the subliminal effects of publicity…
because these are basically unbeknown and beyond knowing. (Webb vs. De Leon,
¥say
1995)
Does the due process clause encompass the right to be assisted by counsel
during an administrative inquiry?
No. The right to counsel, which cannot be waived unless the waiver is in writing and
in the presence of counsel, is a right afforded a suspect or an accused during custodial
investigation. It is not an absolute right and may, thus, be invoked or rejected in a
criminal proceeding and, with more reason, in an administrative inquiry.
Page 637/12/2008
While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be akin to
a criminal proceeding, the fact remains that under existing laws, a party in an
administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the nature
of charges and of the respondent’s capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on
such body to furnish the person being investigated with counsel. In an administrative
proceeding, a respondent has the option of engaging the services of counsel or not.
Thus, the right to counsel is not imperative in administrative investigations because
such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are facts that merit
disciplinary measures against erring public officers and employees, with the purpose of
maintain the dignity of government service.
The right to counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the
Constitution or law. (Lumiqued vs. Exevea, 282 SCRA 125)
Is an extraditee entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant
of arrest once the petition for extradition is filed in court?
Both on statutory and constitutional grounds, the answer is “no”. In Government of
USA vs. Hon. Puruganan, G.R. No. 148571, September 24, 2002:
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
By using the phrase “if it appears”, the law further conveys that accuracy is not
as important as speed at such an early stage. The trial court is not expected to
make an exhaustive determination to ferret out the true and actual situation,
immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the knowledge and the material
then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression—a
¥say
prima facie finding—sufficient to make a speedy initial determination as regards
the arrest and detention of the accused.
To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants, the Constitution
itself requires only examination--under oath or affirmation—of complainants and
Page 647/12/2008
the witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear the
accused before the issuance of warrant of arrest.
It simply 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.
It does not require the universal application of the laws on all persons or things
without distinction. This might in fact sometimes result in unequal protection, as where,
for example, a law prohibiting mature books to all persons, regardless of age, would
benefit the morals of the youth but violate the liberty of adults. What the clause requires
is equality among equals as determined according to a valid classification. By
classification is meant the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from all others in these same particulars. (Philippine Judges
Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703)
64
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Who are protected—all persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike,
both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. Natural and juridical persons
are entitled to this guarantee; but with respect to artificial persons, they enjoy the
protection only insofar as their property is concerned.
Scope:
Political, Economic and Social Equality
¥say
Art. XIII, Secs. 1&2 (social justice)—political & economic
Section 1—The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce
social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments.
Page 657/12/2008
Section 2—The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to
create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) (legal aid to the poor)—xxx Promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in
all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the IBP, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the
speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the
¥say
Supreme Court.
Art. II, Sec. 26 (public service)—The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by
law.
Page 667/12/2008
Art. II, Sec. 14 (equality of women and men)—The State recognizes the role of
women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of
women and men.
There are areas of economic activity which can be limited to Filipinos. The
Constitution itself acknowledges this in various places - exploitation of marine wealth
(Article XII, Section 2, paragraph 2), certain areas of investment (Article XII, Section 10),
to name a few.
In Ichong v. Hernandez, 201 Phil. 1155 (1937), the SC upheld the validity of
the law which nationalized the retail trade. For the protection of the law can be
observed by the national interest.
But there are areas where aliens cannot be kept away for the simple reason that
they cannot be deprived of a common means of livelihood, especially when they are
admitted to the country as immigrants.
Valid Classification:
Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated
differently if there is a basis for valid classification. The requisites are:
66
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
2. The distinction must be germane to the purpose of the law—the distinctions which
are the bases for the classification should have a reasonable relation to the purpose of
the law;
3. Not limited to existing conditions only; and
4. It must apply to all members of the same class.
Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703, The withdrawal of franking
privileges formerly granted to the judiciary but remained with the executive and
¥say
legislative departments, was declared unconstitutional, because the three branches of
government are similarly situated.
Villegas vs. Hui Chiong, the ordinance imposing a work permit fee of P50.00 upon all
aliens desirous of obtaining employment in the City of Manila was declared
unconstitutional, because the fee imposed was unreasonable and excessive, and it
failed to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual aliens who
were required to pay it.
Page 677/12/2008
Sexual Discrimination
Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386, female domestic
working abroad were in a class by themselves because of the special risks to which
their class was exposed.
Administration of Justice
Chavez vs. PCGG, G.R. No. 130716, December 9, 1988, Special grant of exemption in
favor of the Marcoses as contained in the agreement entered into by PCGG with
Marcos Family to compromise the ill-gotten wealth cases (exempt from all taxes) filed
by the former against the latter is a CLASS LEGISLATION, vilative of the equal
protection clause.
Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999, petitioner’s and
intervenor’s right to equal protection was not violated by the enactment of RA 8249
because the law was not directed only to Kuratong Baleleng cases. Every classification
made by law is presumed reasonable, and the party who challenges the law must
present proof of arbitrariness.
Public Policy
Ceniza vs. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 763, The law excluding residents of Mandaue City
from voting for provincial candidates was justified “as a matter of legislative discretion”
and that equal protection would be violated only if group within the city were allowed to
vote while others were not.
67
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Olivares vs. Sandiganbayan, 248 SCRA 700, when the mayor issued permit in favor
of unidentified vendors while imposing numerous requirements upon Baclaran Credit
Cooperatives, he violated the equal protection clause when failed to show that the two
were not similarly situated.
Tiu vs. CA, G.R. No. 127410, January 20, 1999, the executive order granting tax and
duty incentives only to business and residents within the “secured area” of Subic
Special Economic Zone and denying them to those who live within the zone but outside
such “fenced in” territory is VALID.
¥say
The Constitution does not require absolute equality among residents. It is enough
that all persons under like circumstances or conditions are given the same privileges
and required to follow the same obligations.
Classification based on valid and reasonable standards does not violate the
equal protection clause.
Page 687/12/2008
“foreign-hires” and “local-hires” as to justify the disparity in salaries paid to those
teachers.
Relative Constitutionality:
Central Bank Employees Association vs. BSP, G.R. No. 148208, December 15,
2004, the constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a
mere comparison of its provisions of the Constitution since the statute may be
constitutionally valid as applied to one set of facts and invalid in application to another.
A statute valid at one time may become void at another time because of altered
circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes arbitrary or
confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to
inquiry and investigation in the light of changed conditions.
In Dumlao v. Comelec, 95 SCRA 392 (1980), the SC upheld the validity of sec. 4 of
Batas Blg. 52 disqualifying retired elective local officials who have received retirement
benefits and would have been 65 years old at the start of the term. It does not violate
equal protection, for it gives younger blood the opportunity to run the local government.
68
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
persons or things to be seized.
Scope: The protection is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of
crime or not. Artificial persons are also entitled to the guarantee, although they may be
required to open their books of accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of
police and taxing powers.
The right is personal; it may be invoked only by the person entitled to it
(Stonehill vs. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383). As such, the right may be waived either
expressly or impliedly, but the waiver must be made by the person whose right is
Page 697/12/2008
invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver. (People vs.
Damaso, 212 SCRA 457)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
the Revised Penal Code. The SC voided the warrants on the ground that it was
impossible for the judge to have found probable cause in view of the number of laws
alleged to have been violated by the petitioner. How could he even know what
particular provision of each law had been violated? If he did not know this, how could it
be determined if the person against whom the warrant was issued was probably guilty
thereof? In truth, this was a fishing expedition, which violated the sanctity of domicile
and privacy of communications. To establish the requirement of probable cause, the
rule is: One crime, one warrant.
Page 707/12/2008
The judge shall:
a. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the public prosecutor regarding the existence of probable
cause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
b. If the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits
of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
probable cause.
Under the 1987 Constitution, only a judge can issue a warrant; the offensive and
much abused phrase "and other responsible officer as may be authorized by law" in the
1973 Constitution has been removed.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
The requirement that the judge must personally examine the complainant
and his witnesses means that the actual examination cannot be delegated to someone
else, like the clerk of court.
So said the Court in Bache and Co. (Phil) v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971).
In this case, when the BIR agent and his witnesses arrived in court in the middle of a
hearing, the judge suspended the hearing and directed the branch clerk to examine and
take the testimony of the witnesses in his chambers. After he was through with the
hearing, he went back to his chambers and finding that the examination was finished,
asked the BIR agent and his witnesses if they affirmed what they what they testified to,
Page 717/12/2008
after which he issued the search warrant in question.
Likewise, in Corro v. Lising, 137 SCRA 541 (1985), the testimony based on
investigation reports that certain items in the Philippine Times were subversive were
held to be not personal knowledge, and thus the search warrant issued was not valid.
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
Search warrant Warrant of arrest
The description of the property to be General warrants are proscribed and
seized need not be technically accurate unconstitutional. However, a John Doe
nor necessarily precise, and its nature will Warrant (a warrant for the apprehension
necessarily vary according to whether the of a person whose true name is unknown)
identity of the property or its character is a satisfies the constitutional requireme3nt of
matter of concern; the description is particularity if there is some descriptio
71
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
required to be specific only insofar as the personae which will enable the officer to
circumstances will allow. identify the accused.
Failure to state with particularity the place to be searched and items to be seized
makes the warrant used for fishing evidence (a general warrant) which is void.
¥say
descriptions, thus making the warrant a general warrant.
In Corro v. Lising, the search and seizure of "printed copies and dummies of
Philippine Times, subversive documents, articles, printed matters, handbills, leaflets,
banners, and typewriters, tape recorders, etc." was again invalidated for the description
was not at all particular or specific, thus making the warrants general warrants.
When it comes to printed matters, the offensive material need not be set out in
full. It is enough if it specifies the issues and the title of the articles. The instruction to
Page 727/12/2008
seize "subversive materials" is not valid because the determination of whether a
material is subversive or not is not for the police officer to decide; no unfettered
discretion must be granted to him.
The matter is different if goods were searched and seized because of their
intrinsic quality (as when they are stolen or smuggled), than if the goods were searched
for the ideas they contain (as when a "subversive newspaper is sought). In the latter
case, a more detailed description of the physical features of the item is required to avoid
delegating the appreciation of ideas, and thus threaten free expression.
In People vs. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662, May 10, 2002, the warrantless search and
seizure as an incident to a lawful arrest may extend beyond the person of the one
arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
“shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” Such evidence is the fruit of
the poisonous tree. However, it is submitted that it may nonetheless be used in the
judicial or administrative action that may be filed against the officer responsible for its
illegal seizure.
It has also been held that where the accused did not raise the issue of the
admissibility of the evidence against him on the ground that it had been illegally seized,
such omission constitutes a waiver of the protection granted by Section 3, and the
illegally seized evidence could then be admitted against him. (People vs. Exala, 221
¥say
SCRA 494)
WARRANTLESS ARREST—
1. When a person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense;
2. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
Page 737/12/2008
3. When the person to be arrested is an escapee or a detention prisoner. (Section
5, Rule 113, Rules of Criminal Procedure)
The Rule requires that the accused perform some overt act that would indicate
that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.
The officer arresting a person who has just committed, is committing, or is about to
commit an offense must have personal knowledge of the fact. The offense must also be
committed in his presence or within his view. (People vs. Tudtud & Bolong, G.R. No.
144037, September 26, 2003)
The reason is the person may escape easily if a warrant has to be applied for
the mean time. In the Tariff and Customs Code, customs agents are specifically
authorized to search and seize vehicles even without a warrant.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Rule 126, Sec. 12. Search incident to lawful arrest-- A person lawfully
arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as
proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant.
¥say
In Nolasco v. Cruz Pano, 139 SCRA 152 (1985), Milagros Roque and Cynthia
Nolasco were arrested at the intersection of Mayon and Margal Streets in QC at 11:30
a.m., having been wanted as high officers of the CPP. At 12:00 noon, Roque's
apartment located 2 blocks away, was searched and some documents seized. The SC
at first held that the search was valid even if the warrant issued was void for failing to
describe with particularity the things to be seized, because it was an incident of a valid
arrest.
But after the EDSA revolution, the reconstituted SC granted the motion for
reconsideration and held that just because there was a valid arrest did not mean that
Page 747/12/2008
the search was likewise valid. To be valid, the search must be "incidental" to the arrest,
i.e., not separated by time or place from the arrest. If the basis for allowing incidental
searches is looked into, one can see that this situation is not one involving a valid
incidental search.
The law allows the arresting officer to search a person validly arrested (by
frisking him for instance) because (1) a weapon held by the arrested person may be
turned against his captor and (2) he may destroy the proof of the crime, if the arrested
officer has to first apply for a search warrant from a judge.
If, in the Nolasco case, the search was conducted 30 minutes after the arrest,
there is no longer any danger that the captured may turn against the captor; and if the
documents in the apartment were 2 blocks away, the search would no longer be
justified since there is no way for Roque to go back to the apartment and destroy the
documents, having been arrested already.
In People vs. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, while a contemporaneous search
of a person arrested may be effected to discover dangerous weapons or proofs or
implements used in the commission of the crime and which search may extend to the
area within his immediate control where he might gain possession of a weapon or
evidence he can destroy, a valid arrest must precede the search. The process cannot
be reversed.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
search. In this instance, the law requires that there be first a lawful arrest before a
search can be made—the process cannot be reversed.
In the case of People vs. Go, 354 SCRA 338 (2001), the police saw the gun
tucked in appellant’s waist when he stood up. The gun was plainly visible. No search
was conducted as none was necessary. Accused-appellant could not show any license
for the firearm, whether at the time of his arrest or thereafter. Thus, he was in effect
committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. No warrant of arrest was
necessary in such a situation, it being one of the recognized exceptions under the
¥say
Rules.
Page 757/12/2008
items do not fall within the exclusionary clause. Hence, not being fruits of the poisonous
tree, the objects found at the scene of the crime, such as the firearm, the shabu and the
drug paraphernalia, can be used as evidenced against appellant. Besides, it has been
held that drugs discovered as a result of a consented search is admissible in evidence.
In People vs. Molina, 352 SCRA 174 (2001), to constitute a valid in flagrante
delito arrest, two (2) requisites must concur: 1) the person to be arrested must execute
an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and 2) such overt act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer.
In People vs. Estrella, G.R. Nos. 138539-40, January 21, 2003, the arresting
officer may take from the arrested individual any money or property found upon the
latter’s person that which:
1. Was used in the commission of the crime;
2. Was the fruit of the crime;
3. May provide the person arrested with the means of committing violence or
escaping;
4. May be used in evidence in the trial of the case.
The search, however, must be contemporaneous to the arrest and made within a
permissible area of search.
Requisite: the apprehending officer must have been spurred by probable cause in
effecting the arrest which could be considered as one in cadence with the instances of
permissible arrest enumerated in Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
75
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In the case of People vs. Montilla, G.R. No. 123872, January 30, 1998, the
officer could reasonably assume—since the informant was by their side and had so
informed them and pointed out the culprit—that the drugs were in the appellant’s
luggage, and it would have been irresponsible, if not downright absurd, for them to
adopt a “wait-and-see” attitude at the risk of eventually losing their quarry.
(c) When things seized are within plain view of a searching party
¥say
People vs. Hedishi Suzuki, G.R. No. 120670, October 23, 2003, whenever the right
against unreasonable search and seizure is challenged, an individual may choose
between invoking the constitutional protection or waiving his right by giving consent to
the search and seizure. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of the case.
Plain View Doctrine—finds application only when the incriminating nature of the object
is in the “plain view” of the police officer.
Page 767/12/2008
position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.
The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to
sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object
seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore
cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents,
whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to
an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if
the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it
contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be
immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of
a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. (People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA
668)
Requisites:
1. Valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right
to be where they are;
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
(d) Stop-and-Frisk
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapons where a police officer
observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his
experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is
dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating
this behavior he identified himself as a policeman and make reasonable inquiries, and
where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear
for his own or others’ safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself or others in the
area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an
attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
¥say
The interest of effective crime prevention and detection allows a police officer to
approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and manner, for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even though there is insufficient probable cause
to make an actual arrest.
Page 777/12/2008
in order to check the latter’s outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons.
2. The apprehending officer must have a genuine reason to warrant the belief that
the person to be held has weapons or contraband concealed about him.
It should, therefore, be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the
arrest for the principle of stop-and-frisk to apply.
(e) When there is a valid express waiver made voluntarily and intelligently.
Waiver cannot be implied from the fact that the person consented or did not
object to the search, for it many happen that he did so only out of respect for the
authorities. The waiver must be expressly made. It must be given by the person whose
right is violated.
In People vs. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944, July 11, 2002, the shabu in the
baggage of the accused was found by (private) security officers of the interisland
passenger vessel who then reported the matter to the Philippine Coast Guard. The
search and seizure of the suitcase and contraband items were carried out without
government intervention. Accordingly, the exclusionary rule may not be invoked.
(f) Searches of vessel and aircraft for violation of fishery, immigration and customs law
77
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
(h) Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and
building regulations
(i) Conduct of “areal target zoning” and “saturation drive” in the exercise of military
powers of the President
¥say
circumstances
The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a
personal right and can be invoked only by those whose rights have been infringed, or
threatened to be infringed.
Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are
not forbidden. Those which are warranted by the exigencies of public order and are
conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed. For, admittedly, routine
checkpoints do intrude, to a certain extent, on motorists’ right to “free passage without
interruption,” but it cannot be denied that, as a rule, it involves only a brief detention of
Page 787/12/2008
travellers during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to answer a brief question
or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a
body search and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine
checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individual’s right against unreasonable
search. In fact, these routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area, are even less
intrusive.
The checkpoint herein conducted was in pursuance of the gun ban enforced by
the COMELEC. The COMELEC would be hard put to implement the ban if its deputized
agents were limited to a visual search of pedestrians. It would also defeat the purpose
for which such ban was instituted. Those who intend to bring a gun during said period
would know that they only need a car to be able to easily perpetrate their malicious
designs.
78
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
1. A party whose premises or is entitled to the possession thereof refuses, upon demand,
to open it;
2. When such person already knew of the identity of the officers and of their authority and
persons;
3. When the officers are justified in the honest belief that there is an imminent peril to life or
limb;
4. When those in the premises, aware of the presence of someone outside, are then
engaged in an activity which justifies the officers to believe that an escape or the
destruction of evidence is being attempted. (People vs. Huang Zhen Hua and Lee,
¥say
G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004)
In People vs. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, the constitutional protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity of one’s person from
interference by government and it cannot be extended to acts committed by private
individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion.
Do the ordinary right against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to searches
conducted at the airport pursuant to routine airport security procedures?
In the case of People vs. Leila Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, December 18,
2000, persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of
Page 797/12/2008
their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased
concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the
nation’s airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through
metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage, are routinely
subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious
objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is
little question that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated
with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address
systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if
any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure.
These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional
protection against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures.
People vs. Susan Canton, G.R. No. 148825, December 27, 2002, a search made
pursuant to a routine airport security procedure is allowed under RA 6235, which
provides that every airline ticket shall contain a condition that hand-carried luggage,
etc., shall be subject to search, and this condition shall form part of the contract
between the passenger and the air carrier. To limit the action of the airport security
personnel to simply refusing the passenger entry into the aircraft and sending her home
(as suggested by the appellant), and thereby depriving the security personnel of “ability
and facility to act accordingly, including to further search without warrant, in light of such
circumstances, would be sanctioned impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement,
79
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
to the detriment of the society.” The strip search in the ladies’ room was justified under
the circumstances.
¥say
2. Application for search warrant must be obtained from the judge;
3. Materials must be brought to court in the prosecution of the accused for the crime
charged;
4. Determination whether the items confiscated are pornographic materials;
5. Judgment rendered by the court. (Pita vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362)
Page 807/12/2008
as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The guarantee includes within the mantle of its protection tangible, as well as
intangible objects. (See RA 4200 below)
Exceptions to inviolability:
1. Lawful order of the court;
2. When public safety or orders requires otherwise, as may be provided by law.
1. The Civil Code provides that “every person shall respect the dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons” and punishes as
80
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy
of another. It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual
liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another person,
and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications.
2. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime the violation of secrets by an officer, the
revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and trespass to dwelling.
¥say
4. Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405)
Page 817/12/2008
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept or record the same, or to communicate the
content thereof to any person.
2. When authorized by the court which may be issued under the following
conditions:
a. The constitutional requirements for the issuance of a warrant should be
complied with; and
b. The authority shall be effective only for sixty (60) days.
Any evidence obtained in violation of this law is not admissible in any proceeding.
RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized
by all parties to any private communication, to secretly record such communications by
means of a tape recorder. The law does not make any distinction. A telephone
extension is not among the devices covered by this law. (Gaanan vs. IAC, 145 SCRA
112)
Navarro vs. CA, G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999, two local media men in Lucena
City went to the police station to report alleged indecent show in one night
establishment in the City. At the station, there was a heated argument between police
81
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
officer Navarro and Lingan, one of the two media men, which led to fisticuffs. Lingan fell
and his head hit the pavement which caused his death. During the trial, Jalbuena, the
other media man, testified. Presented in evidence to confirm his testimony was a voice
recording he had made of the heated discussion at the police station between accused
police officer Navarro and the deceased, Lingan, which was taken without the
knowledge of the two. The SC held that Jalbuena’s testimony is confirmed by the voice
recording he had made. It may be asked whether the tape is admissible in view of RA
4200, which prohibits wire tapping. The answer is in the affirmative. The law prohibits
the overhearing, intercepting or recording of private communications. Since the
¥say
exchange between petitioner Navarro and Lingan was not private, its tape recording is
not prohibited.
Exempted acts:
A. Use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil, criminal
investigation or trial of offenses mentioned below: [Secs. 1, par. 2]
B. Any peace officer, who is authorized by the written order of the Court (RTC
within whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for which authority is applied for are to be
executed), to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving the
Page 827/12/2008
crimes of: [Sec. 3, par. 1]
1. treason
2. espionage
3. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
4. piracy
5. mutiny in the high seas
6. rebellion
7. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
8. inciting rebellion
9. sedition
10. conspiracy to commit sedition
11. inciting to sedition
12 kidnapping as defined by the RPC
13. violations of CA 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against
national security
The WRITTEN ORDER shall only be issued or granted upon written application
with the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he
may produce and must show:
a) That there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes
enumerated herein has been committed or is being committed provided, that in cases
involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting
to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, such authority shall be granted only
upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually
been or are being committed;
82
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
b) That there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence may be obtained
essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of,
any of such crimes;
c) That there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence.
Contents:
1. The identity of the person or persons whose communications, conversations,
discussions, or spoken words are to be overheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the
¥say
case of telegraphic or telephonic communications, the telegraph line and the telephone
number involved and its location;
2. The identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear, intercept, or record
the communications, conversations, discussions, or spoken words;
3. The offense or offenses sought to be committed or prevented; and
4. The period of the authorization.
Effectivity: The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order
Page 837/12/2008
which shall not exceed 60 days from the date of issuance of the order, unless extended
or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the
public interest.
Procedure: All recordings made under court authorization within 48 hours after the
expiration of the period fixed in the order:
PENALTY
Any person who violates the provisions of this Act, shall, upon conviction, be
punished by:
1. imprisonment for not less than 6 months or more than 6 years; and
2. with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public
office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the
offense; and
83
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
ADMISSIBILITY
Any communication or spoken word, or the existence contents, substance,
purport, effect or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein
contained, obtained or secured by any person in violation of this Act shall not be
admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative hearing or
investigation.
¥say
Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, Sec. 3. xxx
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this (privacy of communication and
correspondence) or the preceding section (unreasonable searches and seizures) shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
One of the remedies of one who was victimized by an illegal search is to ask for
the suppression of the things seized and the evidence illegally taken.
Page 847/12/2008
The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of any evidence obtained in violation of
Sections 2 and 3 (1), Art. III for "any purpose" and in "any proceeding." The evidence is
absolutely useless. This has not always been the case.
In Moncado v. People's Court (1948), the SC, following the U.S. case of Wolf
V. Colorado, rules that evidence illegally obtained is not necessarily excluded if is
otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. In such case, the evidence admitted,
without prejudice to any criminal, civil or administrative liability of the officer who illegally
seized it. In other words, the admissibility of the evidence is not effected by the illegality
of the means by which it was acquired.
It was in Stonehill v. Diokno, supra, following the U.S. case of Maop v. Ohio
1969, when the exclusionary rule was first adopted in the Philippines, the SC noting that
the total suppression of the thing seized is the only effective means of ensuring the
constitutional right which it seeks to preserve. The Court noted, the insufficiency of the
other remedies (e.g. action for damages, criminal punishment, resistance), especially in
the Philippines where violations were committed by those in power and were thus
equipped with the pardoning power to water down the gravity of the other penalties
imposed to violators of those constitutional rights.
The victim may or may not get back the thing seized, depending on whether it is
contraband or not. It the thing is contraband, it would not be returned, and only its
suppression can be asked for. But if the thing is legal, the party can ask for its return,
even if no criminal prosecution has yet been filed, as in the Stonehill case.
84
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In Aberca v. Ver, the SC held that even if the privilege of the writ is suspended,
the court can nevertheless entertain an action not only against the task force but even
against the top ranking officials who ordered the seizure, to recover damages for the
illegal searches and seizures made in a despotic manner. By so doing, one can
indirectly inquire into the validity of the suspension of the privilege.
¥say
Ramirez vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590, RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for
any person, not authorized by all parties to any private communication, to secretly
record such communications by means of a tape recorder. The law does not make a
distinction.
Zulueta vs. CA, 253 SCRA 699, the right may be invoked against the wife who went to
the clinic of her husband and there took documents consisting of private
communications between her husband and his alleged paramour.
Page 857/12/2008
Should in camera inspection of bank accounts be allowed?
Before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before
a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified, the
inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of
competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to
be present during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account
identified in the pending case.
In Union Bank vs. CA, Section 2 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, as
amended, declares bank deposit to be absolutely confidential except:
1. In an examination made in the course of special or general examination of a
bank that is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied
that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious irregularity
has been or is being committed and that it is necessary to look into deposit to
establish such fraud or irregularity;
2. In an examination made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct
its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only and the
results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank;
3. Upon written permission of the depositor;
4. In case of impeachment;
5. Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
public officials; or
6. In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation.
In the case of Marquez vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001, there is
85
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. What is existing is an
investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. In short, what the Office of the
Ombudsman would wish to do is to fish for additional evidence to formally charge
Amado Lagdameo, et al., with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was no pending case
in court which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.
¥say
Section 3, HAS of 2007, provides that the authorities may, upon a written order
of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form,
kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking
devices, or with the use of any suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words
between members of terrorist group. Provided, That surveillance, interception and
recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctor and patients,
journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be
authorized.
Page 867/12/2008
Sec. 4, Article III
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.
The rule on privileged communications has its genesis not in the nation’s penal
code but in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech and of
the press. As early as 1918, in US vs. Cañete, 38 Phil 253, the SC ruled that
publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are protected by the
constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. This constitutional right cannot be
abolished by the mere failure of the legislature to give it express recognition in the
statute punishing libel. (Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1)
The freedom to speak includes the right to be silent. This freedom includes also
includes the right to an audience, in the sense that the State cannot prohibit the people
from hearing what a person has to say, whatever be the quality of his thoughts. This
right, however, is not demandable against those unwilling to listen, who may not be
herded by the government into a captive audience.
86
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Freedom of Expression—
Aspect:
¥say
1. Freedom from censorship or prior restraint; and
Free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly
and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship and punishment. There is
to be no previous restraint on the communication of views or subsequent liability
whether in libel suits, prosecution for sedition, or action for damages, or contempt
proceedings unless there be a clear and present danger of substantive evil that
Page 877/12/2008
Congress has a right to prevent. (Chavez vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 168338, February
15, 2008)
87
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
1. Clear and Present Danger Rule—when words are used in such circumstance
and of such nature as to create a clear and present danger that will bring about
substantive evil that state has the right to prevent.
¥say
conflicting interests demand greater protection under the particular
circumstances presented.
In the case of Adiong vs. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 713, the SC held that the
posting of decals and stickers on cars, calesas, tricycles, pedicabs and other moving
vehicles needs the consent of the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the preference of the
citizens becomes crucial in this kind of propaganda, not the financial resources of the
candidate. The owner can even prepare his own decals or stickers for posting on his
personal property. To strike down this right and enjoin it is impermissible encroachment
Page 887/12/2008
of his liberties. The prohibition on posting of decals and stickers on “mobile” places
whether public or private except in authorized areas designated by the COMELEC
becomes censorship which cannot be justified by the Constitution.
If assembly is to be held at a public place, permit for the use of such place, and
88
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
not for the assembly itself may be validly required. Power of local officials is merely for
regulation and not for prohibition. (Primicias vs. Fugoso, L-1800, January 27, 1948)
The provisions of BP 880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985) are not absolute ban on
¥say
public assemblies but a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of
the assemblies. The Court referred to it as content-neutral regulation.
Page 897/12/2008
In the case of Bayan vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169838, April 25, 2006, Calibrated
Pre-emptive Response (CPR) serves no valid purpose if it means the something else.
Accordingly, what is to be followed is and should be that mandated by the law itself,
namely, maximum tolerance, which specifically means “the highest degree of restraint
that the military, police and other peace keeping authorities shall observe during a
public assembly or in dispersal of the same.
Religion—any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of
ethics and a philosophy
It is a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his
Creator. (Aglipay vs. Ruiz, 64 Phil 201)
Freedom of Religion—
1. Non-Establishment Clause
Scope:
a. State cannot set-up church;
b. Cannot pass laws which aid one religion, all religions or prefer one over
another;
c. Nor influence a person to go to or remain away from church against his will;
nor
89
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Ecclesiastical Affair—it involves the relationship between the church and its members
and relates to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the
congregation to which the state cannot meddle.
Benevolent Neutrality—recognizes that government must pursue its secular goals and
interest but at the same time strive to uphold religious liberty to the greatest extent
possible within flexible constitutional limits. Thus, although the morality contemplated by
laws is secular, benevolent neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based
on religion, provided it does not offend compelling state interests.
Page 907/12/2008
T
hree (3)-Step process of the compelling State Interest Test
1. Has the statute or government action created a burden on the free exercise of
religion?
2. Is there a sufficiently compelling state interest to justify this infringement of
religious liberty?
3. Has the state in achieving its legitimate purposes used the least intrusive means
possible so that the free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to
achieve the legitimate goal of the state? (Estrada vs. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-
1651, June 22, 2006)
Ebralinag vs. Division Superintendent, 219 SCRA 256, to compel students to take
part in a flag ceremony when it is against their religious beliefs will violate their religious
freedom. Petitioners have the right to refuse to salute to the Philippine flag on account
of their religious freedom.
Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA, 259 SCRA 529, the INC’s postulate that its religious freedom
is per se beyond review of the MTRCB should be rejected. Its public broadcast on TV of
its religious programs brings it out of the bosom of internal belief. Television is a
medium that reaches even the eyes and ears of children. The exercise of religious
freedom can be regulated by the State when it will bring about the clear and present
danger of a substantive evil which the State is duty-bound to prevent, i.e., serious
detriment to the more overriding interest of public health, public morals, or public
welfare. A laissez faire policy on the exercise of religion can be seductive to the liberal
mind but history counsels the Court against its blind adoption as religion is and
90
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
continues to be a volatile area of concern in our society today. “For sure, we shall
continue to subject any act pinching the space for the free exercise of religion to a
heightened scrutiny but we shall not leave its rational exercise to the irrationality of a
man. For when religion divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand
still.”
Taruc vs. Bishop Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 144801, March 10, 2005,
expulsion/excommunication of members of a religious institution/organization is a matter
best left to the discretion of the officials, and the laws and canons, of said
¥say
institution/organization. It is not for the courts to exercise control over church authorities
in the performance of their discretionary and official functions. Rather, it is for the
members of the religious institution/organization to conform to just church regulations.
Religious Tests
The constitutional prohibition against religious tests is aimed against clandestine
attempts on the part of the government to prevent a person from exercising his civil or
political rights because of his religious beliefs.
Page 917/12/2008
Sec. 6, Article III
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right
to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.
In Caunca vs. Salazar, 82 Phil 851, a maid has the right to transfer to another
residence even if she had not yet paid the amount advanced for her transportation from
the province by an employment agency which was then effectively detaining her.
91
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Villavicencio vs. Lukban, 39 Phil 778, the Mayor of Manila was not sustained by the
SC when he deported some 170 women of ill-repute to Davao, for the admittedly
commendable purpose of ridding the city for serious moral and health problems. These
women are nevertheless not chattels but Philippine citizens protected by the same
constitutional guarantees as are other citizens—to change their domicile from Manila to
another locality.
¥say
Rubi vs. Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660, the respondents were justified in requiring the
members of certain non-Christian tribes to reside in a reservation, for their better
education, advancement and protection. The measure was held to be a legitimate
exercise of police power.
Lorenzo vs. Director of Health, 50 Phil 595, health officers may restrict access to
contaminated areas and also quarantine those already exposed to the disease sought
to be contained.
Page 927/12/2008
Zemel vs. Rusk, 381 US 1, the Secretary of State may regulate or even prohibit the
travel of citizens to hostile countries to prevent possible international misunderstanding
and conflict.
Section 26 of HAS of 2007—cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the
person charged with the crime of terrorism as therein defined is entitled to bail and if
granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right to
travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the
case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
government so he can express his views thereon knowledgeably and intelligently. One
cannot question the extravagance of the government, for example, if is denied
examination of official vouchers. A citizen may not expose anomaly if those responsible
for it may validly prevent him from investigating their activities. In the interest of truth
and fairness, the citizen should not be made to guess only at what is being done by
public functionaries and to base his views and conclusions on mere rumors, half-truths,
conjectures and even canards.
¥say
Recognized restrictions:
1. National security matters and intelligence information—this jurisdiction
recognizes the common law holding that there is a governmental privilege
against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military,
diplomatic and other national security matters;
Page 937/12/2008
3. Criminal matters, such as those relating to the apprehension, the prosecution
and the detention of criminals, which courts may not inquire into prior to such
arrest, detention and prosecution; and
Rights guaranteed:
1. Right to information on matters of public concern; and
2. Corollary right of access to official records and documents
BA-RA 7941 vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 177271 and 177314, May 4, 2007, the right to
information is a public right where the real parties in interest are the public, or the
citizens to be precise. The people’s right to know is limited to matters of public concern
and is further subject to such limitation as may be provided by law. Similarly, the policy
of full disclosure is confined to transactions involving “public interest’ and is subject to
reasonable conditions prescribed by law.
Valmonte vs. Belmonte, Jr., 170 SCRa 256—the information sought must be “matters
of public concern,” access to which may be limited by law. The information sought by
petitioners is the truth of reports that certain Members of the Batasan Pambansa
93
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
belonging to the opposition were able to secure ‘clean’ loans from the GSIS immediately
before the February 7, 1986 election through the intercession of the former First Lady
Imelda Marcos. x x x The public nature of the loanable funds of the GSIS and the public
office held by the alleged borrowers make the information sought clearly a matter of
public interest and concern.
Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission, the SC affirmed the right of the petitioner to
secure from the Civil Service Commission information regarding the civil service
eligibility of certain persons employed in the health department of the Cebu City
¥say
government.
Page 947/12/2008
guarantees the right not to join an association. (Sta. Clara Homeowners Association
vs. Gaston, G.R. No. 141961, January 23, 2002)
This right is especially meaningful in a free society because a man is by nature
gregarious. His disposition to mix with others of the same persuasions, interests or
objectives is guaranteed by this provision. It also expressly guarantees to those
employed in the public and private sectors the right to form unions.
In the case of Jacinto vs. CA, 281 SCRA 657, the SC held that petitioners were
94
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
not penalized for the exercise of their right to assemble peacefully and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances. Rather, the Civil Service Commission found
them guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for having absented
themselves without proper authority, from their school during regular school days, in
order to participate in the mass protest, their absence ineluctably resulting in the non-
holding of classes and in the deprivation of students of education, for which they were
responsible. Had petitioners availed themselves of their free time—recess, after
classes, weekends or holidays—to dramatize their grievances and to dialogue with the
proper authorities within the bounds of law, no one—not the DECS, the CSC or even
¥say
the SC—could have held them liable for the valid exercise of their constitutionally
guaranteed rights. As it was, the temporary stoppage of classes resulting from their
activity necessarily disrupted public services, the very evil sought to be forestalled by
the prohibition against strikes by government workers. Their act by their nature was
enjoined by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, for which they must, therefore,
be made answerable.
Page 957/12/2008
2006, it was against the backdrop of the provisions of the Constitution that the Court
resolved that employees in the public service may not engage in strikes or in concerted
and unauthorized stoppage of work; that the right of government employees to organize
is limited to the formation of unions or associations, without including the right to strike.
It may be, as the appellate court urged, that the freedom of expression and assembly
and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances stand on a level
higher than economic and other liberties.
The freedom to contract is not absolute; all contracts and all rights are subject to
the police power of the State and not only may regulations which affect them be
established by the State, but all such regulations must be subject to change from time to
time, as the general well-being of the community may require, or the circumstances may
change, or as experience may demonstrate the necessity.
95
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
the obligor and the obligee must be observed; the obligation of their contract must not
be impaired.
However, the protection of the impairment clause is not absolute. There are
instances when contracts valid at the time of their conclusion may become invalid, or
some of their provisions may be rendered inoperative or illegal, by virtue of supervening
legislation.
Limitations:
1. Police power—prevails over contracts;
¥say
2. Eminent domain—may impair obligation of contracts; and
3. Taxation—cannot impair obligation of contracts.
Page 967/12/2008
Hon. Heherson Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, Inc., G.R. No. 162243, November
29, 2006, in unequivocal terms, the SC have consistently held that such licenses
concerning the harvesting of timber in the country’s forests cannot be considered
contracts that would bind the Government regardless of changes in policy and the
demands of public interest and welfare. Since timber licenses are not contracts, the
non-impairment clause cannot be invoked.
Inspired by t social justice policy and covered by the equal protection clause, this
rule has been implemented by several provisions of the Rules of Court in favor of the
pauper litigant. The IBP provides deserving indigents with free legal aid, including
representation in court, and similar services available from the DOJ to litigants who
cannot afford retained counsel, like the accused in a criminal case who can ask for the
assistance of counsel de officio. There are also private legal assistance organizations
now functioning for the benefit of penurious clients who otherwise might be unable to
resort to the courts of justice because only of their misfortune of being poor. This
provision makes them the equal of the rich before the law.
Sec. 12, Article III
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have a
96
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.
Page 977/12/2008
Available when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police
custody, the police carry out a process of interrogation that tend to elicit incriminating
statements.
Custodial Investigation—
Any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been
taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.
People vs. Lugod, G.R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001, the accused should
have been entitled to Miranda rights, because even assuming that he was not yet under
interrogation at the time he was brought to the police station, his confession was elicited
by a police officer who promised to help him if he told the truth. Furthermore, when he
allegedly pointed out the body of the victim, the atmosphere was highly intimidating and
not conducive to a spontaneous response as the whole police force and nearly 100
townspeople escorted him there. Not having the benefit of counsel and not having been
informed of his rights, the confession is inadmissible.
Miranda rights—
(Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436)
x x x The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory,
stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of
97
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage
of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no
questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not
wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have
answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of
the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney
and thereafter consents to be questioned.
Applies only from the moment the investigating officer begins to ask questions for the
purpose of eliciting admissions, confessions or any information from the accused.
Page 987/12/2008
People vs. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002, it was held that this guarantee
does not apply to spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the
authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admitted having
committed the offense. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a
suspect before he was placed under custodial investigation. In this case, the narration
before the Barangay Captain prior to custodial investigation was admissible in
evidence, but not the admissions made before Judge Dicon, inasmuch as the
questioning by the judge was done after the suspect had been arrested and such
questioning already constituted custodial investigation.
Rights guaranteed:
1. Right to remain silent;
2. Right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice
at all stages of the investigation;
Independent and competent counsel—willing to safeguard the constitutional rights of
the accused
3. Right to be informed of such rights;
Rationale:
a. to make him aware of it;
b. to overcome the inherent pressure o the interrogating atmosphere; and
c. to show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his
privilege should he choose to invoke it.
4. Right to be provided with counsel, if the person cannot afford one;
These rights cannot be waives except in writing and in the presence of counsel; it is not
required in a police-line up as the latter is not part of a custodial inquest.
98
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
having become the focus of attention by the police after he had been pointed to
by a certain Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the crime, it was held that when
the out-of-court identification was conducted by the police, the accused was
already under custodial investigation.
2. Mug shots—where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the
suspect; and
3. Police Line ups—where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of
persons lined up for the purpose. It is not considered a part of any custodial
inquest because it is conducted before that stage of investigation is reached
Page 997/12/2008
(People vs. Bravo, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, 1999). The process has
not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory stage, and it is usually the
witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the
course of the line-up (People vs. Amestuzo, July 12, 2001).
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
3. Express; and
4. In writing.
¥say
However, in the case of People vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001, after an
audit, the accused was summoned to appear before the Assistant Accountant of
MetroBank and, in the course of the interview, accused admitted having issued the
subject cashier’s checks without any legitimate transaction, the written confession was
held admissible in evidence inasmuch as the interview did not constitute custodial
investigation.
Ladiana vs. People, G.R. No. 144293, December 24, 2002, the counter-affidavit
Page 1007/12/2008
submitted by the respondent during preliminary investigation is admissible because
preliminary investigation is not part of custodial investigation. The interrogation by the
police, if any would already have been ended at the time of the filing of the criminal case
in court or in the public prosecutor’s office.
WAIVER—
It must be in writing and made in the presence of the counsel. The burden of
proving that there was a valid waiver rests on the prosecution. The presumption of
official duty has been regularly performed cannot prevail over the presumption of
innocence.
Fruit of the poisonous tree—once the primary source is shown to have been lawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence derived from it is inadmissible.
Evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other
100
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
evidence because the originally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
obtained.
¥say
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Right to Bail
Bail—the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by
him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be
required.
The right to bail may be invoked by any person once detention commences even
Page 1017/12/2008
if no formal charges have yet to be filed;
It can availed of by a person who is in custody of law or otherwise deprived of his
liberty;
Suspension of the writ of the privilege of habeas corpus does not suspend the
right to bail;
Even when the accused has previously jumped bail, still he cannot be denied bail
before conviction if it is a matter of right. The remedy is to increase the amount of
bail;
Right to bail has not been recognized and is not available to the military.
101
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
2. The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional
liberty after the same bail bond during the period to appeal subject to the consent
of the bondsman.
3. If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding 6 years but not more
than 20 years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted
shall be cancelled, upon showing by the following or other similar circumstances:
a. That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or
has committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteracion;
Page 1027/12/2008
b. That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement, evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;
c. That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or
under conditional pardon;
d. That the circumstances of the accused or his case indicates the probability
of flight if released on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the
accused may commit another crime.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Without a hearing, the judge could not possibly asses the weight of the evidence
against the accused before granting the latter’s application for bail.
(See the cases of Government of USA vs. Hon. Purganan and
Government of Hongkong vs. Judge Olalia)
¥say
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the
contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to
face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial
may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Page 1037/12/2008
Rights of the Accused:
1. Criminal due process:
a. Opportunity to be heard in court of competent jurisdiction;
b. The accused must proceed against under orderly processes of law;
c. He must be given notice and opportunity to be heard; and
d. The judgment rendered was within the authority of a constitutional law.
2. Presumption of innocence—
Every circumstance favoring the innocence of the accused must be taken
into account. The proof against him must not be permitted to sway
judgment and the presumption that official duty was regularly performed
cannot, by itself, prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.
3. Right to be heard by himself and counsel
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
Objectives:
a. To furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him
as will enable him to make the defense;
b. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against a
further prosecution for the same cause; and
c. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may decide whether they
are sufficient in law to support a conviction, if one should be had.
103
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, every
legislative measure is presumed constitutional. Petitioner failed to discharge the
burden to overcome the presumption of constitutionality.
Page 1047/12/2008
However, right to cross-examination may be waived.
8. Trial in Absentia
After arraignment;
Due notice; and
Absence is unjustified.
104
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
A petition for habeas corpus will be given due course only if it shows that
petitioner is being detained or restrained of his liberty unlawfully. A restrictive custody
and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers under investigation by
their superiors is not a form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty. (SP02 Manalo vs.
PNP Chief Calderon, G.R. No. 178920, October 15, 2007)
Page 1057/12/2008
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
Enriquez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174902-06, February 15, 2008,
this right, like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated when the proceedings are
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.
The concept of speedy disposition of cases is relative or flexible. A simple
mathematical computation of the time involved is insufficient. The facts and
circumstances peculiar to each case must be examined. In ascertaining whether the
right to a speedy disposition of cases has been violated, the following factors must be
considered:
1. The length of delay;
2. The reasons for the delay;
3. The assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
4. The prejudice caused by the delay. (Tilendo vs. Ombudsman and
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165975, September 13, 2007)
105
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
1. Transactional Immunity Statute—testimony of any person or whose possession
of documents or other evidence necessary or convenient to determine the truth in
any investigation conducted is immune from criminal prosecution for an offense
to which such compelled testimony relates; and
2. Use Immunity Statute—prohibits the use of a witness’ compelled testimony and
its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.
Page 1067/12/2008
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Exceptions:
1. As punishment for a crime whereof one has been duly convicted;
2. Service in defense of the State;
3. Naval enlistment;
4. Posse commitatus;
5. Return to work order in industries affected with public interest; and
6. Patria potestas.
106
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
Prohibited Punishments
Mere severity does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. To violate
¥say
constitutional guarantee, penalty must be flagrant and plainly oppressive,
disproportionate to nature of offense as to shock senses of community.
Coverage:
1. Debt—any civil obligation arising from contract
Page 1077/12/2008
2. Poll tax—a specific sum levied upon any person belonging to a certain class
without regard to property or occupation.
A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law hence, its non-payment
may be validly punished with imprisonment.
Sec. 21, Article III
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If
an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
General Rule: Dismissal of action, when made at the instance of the accused, does not
put the accused in first jeopardy.
Exceptions:
1. When ground for dismissal is insufficiency of evidence; or
2. When the proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged as to violate the right
of the accused of a speedy trial.
Page 1087/12/2008
Crimes covered:
1. Same offense; or attempt to commit or frustration thereof or for any offense
which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in
original complaint or information; and
2. When an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall bar another prosecution for the same act.
Conviction of accused shall not bar another prosecution for an offense which
necessarily includes the offense originally charged when:
1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act
or omission;
2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or discovered only after filing of
former complaint or information; and
3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the consent of prosecutor or
offended party.
Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, for double jeopardy to
attach, the case against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid
information sufficient in form and substance and the accused pleaded to the said
charge.
108
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
People vs. Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, et al., G.R. No. 130106, July 15, 2006, after trial on
the merits, an acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of
double jeopardy. The only exception where double jeopardy cannot be invoked is where
there is finding of mistrial resulting in a denial of due process.
¥say
Right against Ex-Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder
Page 1097/12/2008
before its enactment. Basically, an ex post facto law is one that would make a previous
act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed.
Kinds:
1. Law criminalizing act done before its passage;
Example: A law passed in 1990 raising the age of seduction from 18 to 25
years, effective 1980
2. Law aggravating penalty for crime committed before passage;
Example: A law passed in 2000 designating the crime of homicide through
reckless imprudence as murder, effective 1990
3. Law that changes punishment, and inflicts greater or more severe punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
Example: A law passed in 2000 increasing the penalty for libel from prision
correccional to prision mayor, effective 1990
4. Law altering legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than
law required at the time of commission, in order to convict accused;
Example: A law passed in 2000 requiring for conviction merely preponderance
of evidence instead of proof beyond reasonable doubt, effective 1990
5. Law assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a
penalty of deprivation of right for something which when done was lawful; and
Example: A law passed in 2000 depriving professionals of the right to practice
for failure or refusal to vote, effective 1990.
6. Law depriving accused of some lawful protection to which he had been entitled,
such a protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation of
amnesty.
109
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Characteristics:
1. It refers to criminal matters;
2. It is retroactive in application; and
3. It works to the prejudice of the accused.
In the case of US vs. Gomez Colonel, 12 Phil 279, an information for adultery
¥say
filed by the prosecutor was dismissed by the SC on the ground that at the time of the
alleged commission of the offense, prosecution could be commenced only on complaint
of the offended spouse. It was held that the amendatory law permitting the prosecutor to
initiate the charge was ex post facto.
Bill of Attainder—
• It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial
• It is a legislative declaration of guilt
• Essential:
Page 1107/12/2008
1. Specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals;
2. The imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise; and
3. Lack of judicial trial.
Article IV
CITIZENSHIP
110
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines
i. Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were Spanish subjects on
April 11, 1899, and residing in the islands who did not declare their
intention of preserving Spanish nationality between said date and October
Page 1117/12/2008
11, 1900, were declared citizens of the Philippines [Sec. 4, Philippine Bill
of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones Law of 1916], and their children born after April 11,
1899. (en masse Filipinization)
ii. Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the courts are recognized
as such today, not because of the application of the jus soli principle, but
principally because of the doctrine of res judicata.
B. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the Jus Sanguinis doctrine.
Section 1, Article IV— The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution; (February 2, 1987)
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; (jus sanguinis)
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2, Article IV— Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the
Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with
paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in Australia, to spouses
Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa
Marquez, an Australian. Is she a Filipino citizen and, therefore, qualified to run for
Governor of her province?
111
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Historically, she was born a year before the 1935 Constitution took into effect
and at that time, what served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the organic
acts by which the US governed the country. These were the Philippine Bill of July 1,
1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the Jones
Law.
These laws defined who were deemed to be citizens of the Philippine Islands.
Xxx Under both organic acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were Spanish
¥say
subjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein including their children are deemed to be
Philippine citizens. Private respondent’s father, Telesforo, was born on January 5, 1879
in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in
the registry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law,
Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws,
which were the law in force at the time of her birth, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is likewise a
citizen of the Philippines.
The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has established the principle of jus
sanguinis as basis for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship xxx. This principle confers
Page 1127/12/2008
citizenship by virtue of blood relationship. It was subsequently retained under the 1973
and 1987 Constitutions.
Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez, is a Filipino citizen,
having been born to a Filipino father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not
tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If Australia follows the principle of
jus soli, then at most, private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship resulting
to her possession of dual citizenship. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August
9, 2000)
Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004 (on the
controversy surrounding the citizenship of FPJ) –The Court took note of the fact that
Lorenzo Pou (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the age of 84 years of age,
would have been born sometime in 1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish
rule, and that San Carlos, pangasinan, his place of residence upon his death in 1954, in
the absence of any other evidence, could have well been his place of residence before
death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization”
that the Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if
acquired, would thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ). The 1935
Constitution, during which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to
all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of whether such
children are legitimate or illegitimate.
Marriage by Filipino to an alien: “Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall
retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law,
to have renounced it” [Sec.4, Art. IV].
112
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter
No. 914, October 1, 1999— Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been born on
April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, was already 35 years old when he
complied with the requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14 years after he
had reached the age of majority. By any reasonable yardstick, Ching’s election was
clearly beyond the allowable period within which to exercise the privilege. All his acts
(passing the CPA and Bar Exams) cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives him
the requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which he did not comply with. (He was
¥say
not allowed to take the Lawyer’s Oath)
The proper period for electing Philippine citizenship was, in turn, based on the
pronouncements of the Department of State of the US government to the effect that the
election should be made within a “reasonable time” after attaining the age of majority.
The phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean that the election should be
made within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority except when there is
justifiable reason to delay.
The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time he reached 21 until he finally
expressed his intention to elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the
Page 1137/12/2008
contemplation of the requirement of electing “upon reaching the age of majority”.
®(If his parents were not married, he will follow the citizenship of his mother and he need not elect Philippine citizenship. )
Caram provision. Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before the
adoption of the 1935 Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Islands are
considered citizens of the Philippines. In Chiongbian vs. de Leon, the SC held that the
right acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible.
Re: 1973 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines. Provision is
prospective in application; to benefit only those born on or after January 17, 1973 (date
of effectivity of 1973 Constitution).
If born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, the person must elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. [Within reasonable time=3 years except
when there is justifiable reason to delay]
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right; during his minority, the
child is an alien [Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration 80 Phil. 541].
The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only
to legitimate children. In Republic vs. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004,
it was held that the respondent, who was concededly an illegitimate child considering
that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married, is not required to
comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child of
¥say
a Filipino mother, respondent became a Filipino upon birth. Record shows that
respondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She
registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of
the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act
of electing Philippine citizenship.
Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino citizens through
naturalization, generally under CA No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and
Page 1147/12/2008
by RA 530.
To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. The decision
granting Philippine citizenship becomes executor only after 2 years from its
promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the applicant:
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
5. He must be able to write and speak English or Spanish and any of the principal
languages; and
6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the public
schools or private schools recognized by the Bureau of private Schools of the
Philippines where Philippine history, government and civic are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the
residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization as Filipino citizen. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, may
7, 2001)
Page 1157/12/2008
Disqualifications:
1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or
group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments;
2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
assault or assassination for the success of predominance of their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy;
4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;
6. Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines have not
mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to
learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of Filipinos;
7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during
the period of such war;
8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos
the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Procedure:
1. Filing of declaration of intention- 1 year prior to the filing of the Petition with the
OSG
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
b. Those resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of
the petition, and enrolled their children in elementary and HS recognized
by the government and not limited to any race or nationality;
c. Those widows and minor children of aliens who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the Philippines and die before they are
actually naturalized.
¥say
3. Publication of the Petition in the O.G. or in a newspaper of general circulation
once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Failure to comply is fatal. (Po Yo Bi vs.
Republic, 205 SCRA 400)
Page 1167/12/2008
7. Hearing after 2 years. During the 2-year probation period, applicant has:
a. Not left the Philippines;
b. Dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or profession;
c. Not been convicted of any offense or violation of rules; and
d. Not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any
government-announced policies.
Modes of Naturalization:
1. DIRECT- through:
d. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139 The Administrative
Naturalization Law of 2000—grants Philippine citizenship to aliens born
and residing in the Philippines
e. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on Congress; usually
conferred on an alien who has made an outstanding contribution to the
country
f. Collective change of nationality, as a result of cessation or subjugation
g. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as nationals of the State
where they are born
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Edison So vs. RP, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007—Naturalization signifies the
act of formally adopting a foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing him or
her with privileges of a citizen. Under current and existing laws, there are 3 ways by
which an alien may become a citizen by naturalization:
a. Administrative naturalization pursuant to RA 9139;
b. Judicial naturalization pursuant to CA No. 473, as amended—covers all aliens
regardless of class; and
¥say
c. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by Congress bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien.
It is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own good moral character
but also the good moral character of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons.
A naturalization proceeding is nota judicial adversary proceeding, and the decision
rendered therein does not constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may be
cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by misleadintg
the court upon any material fact.
RA 9139—not all aliens may avail of this remedy. Only native born aliens who have
Page 1177/12/2008
been residing here in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other country
and all along thought that they were Filipinos; who have demonstrated love and loyalty
to the Philippines, and affinity to the customs and traditions of the Filipinos.
Naturalization Repatriation
-mode for both acquisition and -mode for reacquisition for those who lost
reacquisition of citizenship their citizenship
-governed by CA 473 (for acquisition) and -governed by various statutes
CA 63 (for reacquisition)
-consists a lengthy process -consists of taking of an oath of allegiance
to the RP and registering said oath in the
LCR of the place where the person
concerned resides or last resided
Effects of Naturalization:
1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully naturalized; (She need not
go through the naturalization process; if she doesn’t suffer from any disqualification, no need to
prove the qualifications)
2. Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall be
considered citizens of the Philippines;
3. Minor children born outside the Philippines who were residing in the Philippines
at the time of naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens.
4. Minor children born outside the Philippines before parent’s naturalization shall be
considered Filipino citizens only during minority, unless they begin to reside
permanently in the Philippines;
5. Child born outside the Philippines after parent’s naturalization shall be
117
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Denaturalization
Grounds:
1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or illegally;
2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to some foreign country and
¥say
establishes residence there;
Page 1187/12/2008
In Republic vs. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although misconduct was committed after the 2-
year probationary period, conviction of perjury and rape was held to be valid ground for
denaturalization.
Effects of Denaturalization:
1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the proceedings, denaturalization
shall divest the wife and children of their derivative naturalization;
2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized person, his wife and children
shall retain their Philippine citizenship.
Policy against Dual Allegiance: “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national
interest and shall be dealt with by law” [Sec. 5, Art. IV].
118
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
and of its laws, such an individual has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship.
That is of no moment.
The filing of a COC suffices to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing
any disqualification as dual citizen. This is so because in the COC, one declares that he
is a Filipino citizen and that he will support and defend the Constitution and will maintain
true faith and allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath operates as an
effective renunciation of foreign citizenship. In this case, the Court adopted the liberal
interpretation of the rule. Manzano is not really prohibited to run due to dual citizenship.
Dual allegiance is the one prohibited. Dual citizenship referred to under Section 40 (d)
¥say
of the Local Government Code refers to dual allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of
the 1987 Constitution.[Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May 26, 1999]
Section 5, Article IV—Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and
shall be dealt with by law.
This section is not a self-executing law. It needs an implementing law.
Page 1197/12/2008
xxx
(d) Those with dual citizenship.
x x x.
The provision prohibits dual citizenship but the Supreme Court ruled that it refers to
prohibition on dual allegiance.
Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007, what RA 9225 does is
allow dual citizenship to natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine citizenship
by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not
recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the
person implicitly renounces its foreign citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225
stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the burden of confronting
119
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.
What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of RA 9225.
¥say
considered citizens, unless by their act or omission they are deemed to have
renounced Philippine citizenship. [Mercado vs. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630, May
26, 1999]
Page 1207/12/2008
said person is a party;
2. The Solicitor general or his authorized representative took active part in the
resolution thereof; and
3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by SC.
Although the GR was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, the case did not
foreclose the weight of prior rulings on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may
somehow be placed on these antecedent official findings, though not really binding, to
make the effort easier or simpler. (Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9,
2000).
A. Loss of citizenship:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country (Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, 174 SCRA
245) However, this was modified by RA 9225—An Act Making the Citizenship
of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent—
September 15, 2003 which declares the policy of the State that all Philippine
citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed to have lost
their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance
Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of RA 9225, become
citizens of a foreign country, may reacquire Philippine citizenship upon
taking the oath of allegiance
Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below 18
years of age, of those who reacquire their Philippine citizenship upon the
120
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
subscribe and swear to an oath of allegiance to the RP
o For those intending to practice their profession, apply with the
proper authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice
Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1, Labo lost Filipino citizenship because
he expressly renounced allegiance to the Philippines when he applied for
Page 1217/12/2008
Australian citizenship.
Express renunciation means a renunciation made known distinctly and
explicitly, and not left to inference or implication.
Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of foreign passport
do not constitute effective renunciation. (Valles vs. COMELEC)
In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364, obtaining a
Portuguese passport and signing commercial documents as a Portuguese
were construed as renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a
foreign country upon attaining the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino
may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this manner while RP is at war
with any country. –an application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance.—by
virtue of RA 9225
4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a
foreign country EXCEPT:
If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance with the said
foreign country; and
The said foreign country maintains armed forces in Philippine territory with
the consent of RP
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization
6. By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of the
121
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
B. Reacquisition of citizenship:
1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
4. By direct act of Congress
¥say
Effect of repatriation:
It allows the person to recover or return to, his original status before he lost his
Philippine citizenship. Thus, the respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who
lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US Marine Corps, was deemed to
have recovered his natural-born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship through
repatriation. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001)
Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. CA, G.R. No. 125793, August 29, 2006, the only
Page 1227/12/2008
persons entitled to repatriation under RA 8171 are the following: a) Filipino women who
lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and b) Natural-born Filipinos
including their minor children who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political
or economic necessity.
122
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Article V
SUFFRAGE
Page 1237/12/2008
Section 1
Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise
disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen (18) years of age, and who shall
have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place wherein they
propose to vote for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No
literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the
exercise of suffrage.
Section 2
The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the
ballots as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and illiterates to
vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to
vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may
promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.
Right of Suffrage—
Right to vote in election of officers chosen by people and in the determination of
questions submitted to people.
123
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
ELECTION—is the embodiment of the popular will, the expression of the sovereign
power of the people.
It is the means by which the people choose their officials for a definite and fixed
period and to whom they entrust for the time being the exercise of the powers of
government.
Kinds:
1. REGULAR ELECTION—refers to an election participated in by those who
¥say
possess the right of suffrage and not disqualified by law and who are registered
voters. It is the election of officers either nationwide or in certain subdivisions
thereof, after expiration of full term of the former members.
a. National Election—
i. for President and VP—every 6 years
ii. for Senators—every 3 years
Page 1247/12/2008
Paras vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996, the SK Election is
not a regular election because the latter is participated in by youth with ages ranging
from 15-18, as per RA 9164, some of whom are not qualified voters to elect local or
national elective officials.
b. Local Elections—
i. For Members of HOR—
ii. Party-List Representatives—
iii. Provincial Officials— Every 3 years from the
2 nd
124
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
or to propose and enact legislations through election called for the
purpose
i. Initiative on the Constitution
ii. Initiative on Statutes
iii. Initiative on Local Legislation
c. Referendum—power of the electorate to approve or reject a piece of
legislation through an election called for the purpose.
i. Referendum on Statutes
Page 1257/12/2008
ii. Referendum on Local Laws
d. Recall—mode of removal of an elective public officer by the people before
the end of his term of office
Components:
Choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote
Conduct of the polls
Listing of voters
Holding of electoral campaign
Act of casting and receiving the ballots from the voters
Counting he ballots
Making election returns
Proclaiming the winning candidates
125
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
a. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections,
returns, and qualifications of all elective provincial and city officials;
b. Appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving—
i. Elective municipal officials decided by the trial courts of general
jurisdiction
ii. Elective barangay officials decided by the trial courts of limited
jurisdiction
Page 1267/12/2008
Decisions, final orders, or ruling of the COMELEC on election contests
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final and executory,
and not appealable.
3. Decide, except those involving the right to vote, all questions affecting elections,
including determination of the number and location of polling places, appointment
of election officials and inspectors, and registration of voters.
4. Deputize, with the concurrence of the President, law enforcement agencies and
instrumentalities of the government, including the AFP for the exclusive purpose
of ensuring free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.
5. Registration of political parties, organization, or coalition/accreditation of citizens’
arms of the COMELEC.
6. File, upon verified complaint, or on its own initiative, petitions in court for the
inclusion or exclusion of voters, investigate and where appropriate, prosecute
cases for violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting
election frauds, offenses and malpractices.
7. Recommend to Congress effective measures to minimize election spending,
including limitation of places where propaganda materials shall be posted, and to
prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, and
nuisance candidacies.
126
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
POLITICAL PARTY—
¥say
A political party is any organized group of citizens advocating an ideology or
platform, principles and policies for the general conduct of government and which, as
the most immediate means of securing their adoption, regularly nominates and supports
certain of its leaders and members as candidate in public office.
To acquire juridical personality and to entitle it to rights and privileges granted to
political arties, it must be registered with COMELEC.
Page 1277/12/2008
Party-List System Act (RA 7941)
(See Discussions under the Legislative Department)
VOTERS—
Qualifications:
1. Filipino citizen
2. At least 18 years of age on the day of the election
3. Resident of the Philippines for at least one year immediately before the election
4. Resident of the city/municipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least 6
months immediately preceding the election
5. Not otherwise disqualified by law
Aquino vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400, the meaning and purpose of residency
requirement—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.
127
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In Marcita Mamba Perez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133944, October 28, 1999, the fact
that a person is registered as a voter in one district is not proof that he is not domiciled
in another district. Thus, in Faypon vs. Quirino, the SC held that the registration of a
voter in a place other than his residence of origin is not sufficient to consider him to
have abandoned or lost his residence.
¥say
Disqualifications:
1. Sentence by final judgment to suffer imprisonment for not less than one year,
unless pardoned or granted amnesty; but right is reacquired before expiration of
5 years after service of sentence
2. Conviction by final judgment of any of the following crimes:
Page 1287/12/2008
a. Crime involving disloyalty to the government
b. any crime against national security
c. Firearms laws
But right is reacquired before expiration of 5 years after service of sentence.
3. Insanity or incompetence declared by competent authority (Section 18, OEC)
REGISTRATION—
It refers to the act of accomplishing and filing a sworn application for registration
by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he
resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval of the
Election Registration Board (ERB).
Registration does not confer the right to vote; it is but a condition precedent to
the exercise of the right. Registration is a regulation, not a qualification. (Yra vs. Abano, 52
Phil 380)
Voter’s Registration Act of 1996 (RA 8189)—General Registration of Voters
128
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In the case of Akbayan Youth vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147066, March 26,
2001, the SC upheld the COMELEC’s denial of the request for two (2) additional
registration days in order to enfranchise more than 4 million youth who failed to register
on or before December 27, 2000. It is an accepted doctrine in administrative law that
the determination of administrative agencies as to the operation, implementation and
application of law is accorded great weight, considering that these specialized
government bodies are, by their nature and functions, in the best position to know what
they can possibly do or not do under prevailing circumstances.
¥say
Petition for Inclusion (Sec. 34, RA 8189) and Exclusion (Sec. 35, RA 8189) of Voters in
the List
1. Jurisdiction
a. MTC—original and exclusive
b. RTC—appellate jurisdiction
c. SC—appellate jurisdiction over RTC on question of law
2. Petitioner
Page 1297/12/2008
a. Inclusion
Private person whose application was disapproved by the ERB or
whose name was stricken out from the list of voters
COMELEC
b. Exclusion
Any registered voter in the city or municipality
Representative of political party
Election officer
COMELEC
3. Period of Filing
a. Inclusion—any day except 105 days before regular election or 75 days
before a special election
b. Exclusion—anytime except 100 days before a regular election or 65 days
before a special election
129
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Ututalum vs. COMELEC, 181 SCRA 335, annulment of the list of voters shall
not constitute a ground for a pre-proclamation contest.
¥say
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (RA 9189)
Page 1307/12/2008
Overseas Absentee Voter—citizens of the Philippines who is qualified to register and
vote under this Act, not otherwise disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of
election
Coverage: All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who are not otherwise disqualified by
law at least 18 years of age on the day of elections, may vote for President, VP,
Senators and Party-List Representatives. (Sec. 4)
Disqualifications:
1. Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance with Philippine laws;
2. Those who have expressly renounces their Philippine citizenship and who have
pledged their allegiance to a foreign country;
3. Those who have committed and are convicted in a final judgment by a court or
tribunal of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1 year,
including those who have committed and been found guilty of disloyalty, such
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or amnesty. Provided
however, that any person disqualified to vote under this subsection shall
automatically acquire the right to vote upon expiration of 5 years after service of
sentence;
4. An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host
country, unless he executes, upon registration, an affidavit for the purpose by the
130
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
COMELEC declaring that he shall resume actual physical residence not later
than 3 years from approval of his registration. Such affidavit shall also state that
he has not applied for citizenship in another country; and
5. Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared insane or incompetent
by competent authority in the Philippines or abroad, as verified by Philippine
embassies, consulate or foreign service establishment concerned.
¥say
1. Valid passport
2. Accomplished registration form containing the following information:
a. Last known residence of the applicant in the Philippines before leaving for
abroad;
b. Address of applicant abroad or forwarding address in the case of
seafarers;
c. Where voting by mail is allowed, the applicant’s mailing address outside
the Philippines; and
Page 1317/12/2008
d. Name and address of applicant’s authorized representative in the
Philippines.
In case of immigrants and permanent residents not otherwise disqualified to vote, an
affidavit declaring the intention to resume actual physical permanent residence in the
Philippines not later than 3 years after approval of his registration.
Makalintal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013, July 10, 2003, Section 18.5 of RA
9189, insofar as it grants sweeping authority to the COMELEC to proclaim all winning
candidates, it is unconstitutional as it is repugnant to Section 4 of Article VII of the
Constitution, which vest in Congress the authority to proclaim the winning Presidential
or Vice-Presidential candidates.
CANDIDATES—
DISQUALIFIED CANDIDATES
Under Omnibus Election Code (BP 881)
1. Any person declared by competent authority as insane or incompetent
Removal of DQ: declaration of removal of DQ by competent authority
131
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
2. Any person sentenced by final judgment for any of the following offenses:
a. Subversion, insurrection or rebellion
b. Offense for which he was sentenced to penalty of more than 18 months
c. Crime involving moral turpitude
Villaber vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148326, November 15, 2001, violation of BP
22 is a crime involving moral turpitude, because the accused knows at the time of the
¥say
issuance of the check that he does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon presentment. A conviction thereof
shows that the accused is guilty of deceit, and certainly relates to and affects the good
moral character of the person.
Dela Torre vs. COMELEC, 258 SCRA 483, violation of the Anti-Fencing Law
involves moral turpitude, and the only legal effect of probation is to suspend the
implementation of the sentence. Thus, the disqualification still subsists.
Page 1327/12/2008
Removal of DQ: plenary pardon, amnesty, lapse of 5 years after service of
sentence
3. A permanent resident to or immigrant to a foreign country unless he waives such
status (OEC, Sections 12 and 68)
In the case of Caasi vs. COMELEC, 191 SCRA 229, the SC said that a “green
card” is ample proof that the holder thereof is a permanent resident of, or immigrant to,
the United States.
4. One who has violated provisions on:
a. Campaign period;
b. Removal, destruction of lawful election propaganda;
c. Prohibited forms of propaganda;
d. Regulation of propaganda through mass media; and
e. Election offenses.
In Pangkat Laguna vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148075, February 4, 2002, the
acts of Laguna Governor Lazaro in ordering the purchase of trophies, basketballs,
volleyballs, chessboard sets, and the distribution of medals and pins to various schools,
did not constitute a violation of Section 80 on premature campaigning. Respondent
Lazaro was not in any way directly or indirectly soliciting votes; she was merely
132
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
performing the duties and tasks imposed upon her by law, which duties she had sworn
to perform as Governor of Laguna.
Codilla vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002, when a
candidate has not yet been disqualified by final judgment during the election day and
was voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. To do so would
amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides.
Under Local Government Code (RA 7160)
¥say
1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or an
offense punishable by imprisonment for at least 1 year, within 2 years after
service of sentence;
Page 1337/12/2008
decision, inasmuch as it was shown that he merely refused to accept delivery of the
copy of the decision.
3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic;
4. Those with dual citizenship;
(See the case of Mercado vs. Manzano and Valles vs. COMELEC)
6. Permanent residents in foreign country or those who have acquired the right to
reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this
Code.
See Caasi vs. COMELEC, 191 SCRA 229.
133
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
office or for whatever reason which he previously occupied but has caused to
become vacant due to his resignation; and
2. Any person who, directly or indirectly, coerces, bribes, threatens, harasses,
intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or produces any violence, injury,
punishment, torture, damage, loss or disadvantage to any person or persons
aspiring to become a candidate or that of the immediate member of his family,
his honor or property that is meant to eliminate all other potential candidates.
Page 1347/12/2008
Ocampo vs. Crespo, G.R. No. 158466, June 15, 2004, there must be final judgment
before the election in order that the votes of a disqualified candidate can be considered
stray.
134
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Duty to receive COC: ministerial duty of the COMELEC
When a candidate files his COC, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to receive
and acknowledge its receipt pursuant to Section 76, of the Election Code. The
COMELEC may not, by itself, without the proper proceedings, deny due course to or
cancel a COC filed in due form. (Luna vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 165983, April 24,
2007)
Page 1357/12/2008
Abcede vs. Imperial, 103 Phil 136, the COMELEC has no discretion to give or
not to give due course to a COC filed in due form. While it may look into patent defects
in the COC, it may not go into matters not appearing on their face.
Exceptions:
1. Nuisance candidates
2. Petition to deny due course or to cancel a COC—Sec. 78 of the OEC
3. Filing of a disqualification case on any of the grounds enumerated in Section
68, OEC.
Where the decision of the COMELEC disqualifying the candidate is not yet final
and executory on election day, the Board of Election Inspectors (BEI), in the exercise of
its ministerial duty, is under obligation to count and tally the votes cats in favor of the
candidate. (Papandayan vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147909, April 16, 2002)
Cipriano vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 158830, August 10, 2004, the COMELEC
may not, by itself, without proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a COC filed
in due form. Section 78 of OEC, which treats of a petition to deny due course to or
cancel a COC on the ground that any material representation therein is false, requires
that the candidate must be notified of the petition against him, and he should be given
the opportunity to present evidence in his behalf.
135
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. (Section 77, OEC)
Page 1367/12/2008
Doctrine of the Rejection of the Second Placer—
Labo doctrine—the disqualification of the elected candidate does not entitle the
candidate who obtained the 2nd highest number of votes to occupy the office vacated as
a result of the disqualification. (Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1)
Albana vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163302, July 23, 2004, the ineligibility of a
candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the
next highest number of votes to be declared elected. To simplistically assume that the
second placer would have received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment
for the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He lost in the
election.
136
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In Fr. Cayat vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 163776 and 165736, April 24, 2007, the
law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election
cannot be voted for, and votes cast for him shall not be counted. This is a mandatory
provision of law under Section 6 of RA 6646, the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987. The
SC did not apply this doctrine of the rejection of second placer which triggers the rule on
succession. There was no second placer because Palileng is not a second-placer but
the only placer. There is only one candidate.
¥say
Withdrawal of the COC—shall effect the disqualification of the candidate to be elected
for the position. (Ycain vs. Caneja, 81 Phil 773)
The withdrawal of the withdrawal, for the purpose of reviving the COC must be
made within the period provided by law for the filing of COC. (Monsale vs. Nico, 83
Phil 758)
The affidavit of withdrawal can be filed directly with the main office of the
COMELEC, the office of the Regional Election Director concerned, office of the
Page 1377/12/2008
provincial election supervisor of the province to which the municipality belongs, or the
office of the municipal election officer of the municipality.
Nuisance Candidates—
They are candidates who have no bona fide intention to run for the office for
which the COC has been filed and would thus prevent a faithful election.
COMELEC may refuse to give due course to or cancel a COC of a nuisance
candidate. This can be done motu proprio or upon verified petition of an interested
party.
Garcia vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 121139, July 12, 1996, proclamation of the
winning candidate renders moot and academic a motion for reconsideration filed by a
candidate who had been earlier declared by the COMELEC as nuisance candidate.
137
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel COC (Sec. 78, OEC)—a verified petition
seeking to deny due course or to cancel a COC may be field by any person exclusively
on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required in Section
74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the
time of filing the COC and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than
15 days before the election.
Jurisdiction over a petition to cancel a COC lies with the COMELEC in division, not
with the COMELEC en banc. (Garvida vs. Sales, G.R. No. 122872, September 10,
¥say
1997)
Salcedo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 135886, August 16, 1999, material
misrepresentation contemplated in Section 78, OEC refers to qualifications for elective
office. Aside from that, false representation must consist of a deliberate attempt to
mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. It
must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s qualifications for
public office. The use of surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the public
Page 1387/12/2008
as to one’s identity, is not within the scope of the provision.
Loong vs. COMELEC, 216 SCRA 760, the petition for cancellation of the COC of
Loong for alleged misrepresentation as to his age, filed by Ututalum beyond the 25-day
period from the last day for filing COC cannot be given due course. Neither can it be
treated as quo warranto petition since there has been no proclamation yet.
The evident purpose of the law in requiring the filing of the certificate of
candidacy, and in fixing the time limit therefor are:
138
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
1. To enable the voters to know, at least 60 days before the regular election, the
candidates among whom they are to make the choice; and
2. To avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cats. For if
the law did not confine the choice or election by the voters to the duly registered
candidates, there might be as many persons voted for as there are voters, and
votes might be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark to identify
the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election. (Miranda
vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999)
¥say
CAMPAIGN
Election and Campaign Periods (Sec. 3, OEC)
Election period begins 90 days before the day of election and ends 30 days
thereafter—period of time with respect to a scheduled date of election when the conduct
of certain political activities are regulated by election laws, and the violation of which
constitutes election offense subject to penalties.
Page 1397/12/2008
Campaign Periods:
1. President and VP—90 days before the day of election
2. Members of Congress, Senatorial, Provincial and City/Municipal—45 days
3. Barangay Election—15 days
4. Special Election—45 days (Section 5, paragraph 2, Article VIII)
The campaign period shall no include the day before and the day of the election.
Period of time within the election period specified by law when bona fide candidates
can legally conduct campaign activities and other election propaganda in relation to the
scheduled date of election.
139
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Prohibited Campaign:
¥say
1. Public exhibition of movie, cinematograph or documentary portraying the life or
biography of a candidate during the campaign period.
2. Public exhibition of a movie, cinematograph or documentary portrayed by an
actor or media personality who is himself a candidate.
3. Use of airtime for campaign of a media practitioner who is official of any party or
member of the campaign staff of a candidate of political party.
Limitation on Expenses
Page 1407/12/2008
Candidates:
1. President and VP—P10/voter
2. Other candidate with party—P3/voter
3. Other candidate without party—P5/voter
Election Surveys
Sec. 5.4 of RA 9006—surveys affecting national candidates shall not be
published within 15 days before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall
not be published 7 days before an election. This section was declared unconstitutional
in the case of Social Weather Station vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147571, May 5, 2001,
for it violated the constitutional rights of speech, expression and the press.
Reasons:
1. It imposes a prior restraint on the freedom of expression
2. It is direct and total suppression of a category of expression even though such
suppression is only for a limited period.
3. The government interest sought to be promoted can be achieved by means other
than the suppression of freedom of expression.
140
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Substitution of Candidates
In case of valid substitution after the official ballots have been printed, the votes
cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes but shall not
invalidate the whole ballot. This rule shall not apply if the substitute candidate is of the
same family name. (Section 12, RA 9006) See the case of Luna vs. COMELEC
¥say
and seasonably filed COC, he is and was not a candidate at all. If a person was not a
candidate, he cannot be substituted under Section 77 of the OEC. (Miranda vs. Abaya,
G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999)
Page 1417/12/2008
candidates from gaining undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their
resources and popularity.
Chavez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004, all propaganda materials
including advertisements on print, in radio, or on television showing image or
mentioning the name of a person, who subsequent to the placement or display thereof
becomes a candidate for public office, be immediately removed, otherwise, this shall be
presumed as premature campaigning in violation of Section 80 of the OEC.
CASTING OF VOTES
(Read Sections 190-198 of OEC)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
1. Motu proprio; or
2. Upon a verified petition by any interested party, after due notice and hearing.
COMELEC shall call for the holding of the election on a date reasonably close to the
date of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not
later than 30 days after the cessation of the cause for such postponement or
suspension of the election or failure to elect.
¥say
Pre-conditions for declaring failure of elections—
1. No voting has been held or election has been suspended before the hour
fixed by law for the closing of the voting in any precinct because of:
a. Force majeure
b. Violence
c. Terrorism
d. Fraud
e. Other analogous cases.
Page 1427/12/2008
2. Votes not cast are sufficient to affect the results of the elections. (Tan vs.
COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 148575-76, December 10, 2003)
COMELEC shall call for the holding or continuation of the election not held,
suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect on a date reasonably close to the date
of the election not held, suspended or which resulted in a failure to elect but not later
than 30 days after the cessation of the cause of such postponement or suspension of
the election or failure to elect.
The cause for the declaration of a failure of election may occur before or after the
casting of votes or on the day of the election. (RA 7166, Synchronized National and
Local Elections Act)
Batabor vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 160428, July 21, 2004, the power to declare
a failure of election is vested exclusively upon the COMELEC. x x x There is failure of
election only when the will of the electorate has been muted and cannot be ascertained.
Loong vs. COMELEC, the petition for annulment of election results or to declare
failure of election in Parang, Sulu, on the ground of STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY
142
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
and massive fraud was granted by the COMELEC. Even before the technical
examination of election documents was conducted, the cOMELEC already observed
badges of fraud just by looking at the election results in Parang. Nevertheless, the
COMELEC dismissed the petition for annulment of election results or to declare failure
of elections in the municipalities of Tapul, Panglima Estino, Pata, Siasi and
Kalinggalang Calauag. The dismissal was on the ground of untimeliness of the petition,
despite a finding that the same badges of fraud evident from the results of the election
based on the certificates of canvass of votes in Parang, are also evident in the election
¥say
results of the five (5) mentioned municipalities. The SC ruled that the COMELEC
committed grave abused of discretion in dismissing the petition as there is no law which
provides a reglementary period to file annulment of elections when there is yet no
proclamation. The election resulted in a failure to elect on account of fraud. Accordingly,
the Court ordered the COMELEC to reinstate the aforesaid petition.
Banaga, Jr. vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 701, the circumstances in the above
Page 1437/12/2008
case are not present in this case so that reliance in Loong by petitioner Banaga is
misplaced. A prayer to declare failure of election and a prayer to annul the election
results are actually of the same nature. Whether an action is for the declaration of
failure of elections or for annulment of election results, based on allegations of fraud,
terrorism, violence or analogous cases, the OEC denominates them similarly.
Docket number starts with SPA Docket number starts with EPC
An En Banc decision of the COMELEC in En Banc decision of the COMELEC in an
a special action becomes final and ordinary action becomes final and
executory after 5 days from promulgation, executory within 30 days from its
unless restrained by the SC promulgation
COUNTING OF VOTES
143
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Principle of Ballot Secrecy—voters are prohibited from exhibiting the contents of their
official ballots to other persons, from making copies thereof, or from putting
distinguishing marks thereon so as to be identified. The reason behind this is to avoid
vote buying through voter identification.
Rules for the Appreciation of Ballots: (Section 211, OEC)—a function of the Board
of Election Inspectors
¥say
In reading and appreciation of ballots, every ballot shall be presumed valid unless
there is clear and good reason to justify its rejection. In the appreciation of the ballots,
the object should be to ascertain and carry into effect the intention of the voter, if it could
be determined with reasonable certainty. (Ferin vs. Gonzales, 53 SCRA 237)
A ballot which has been cast carries the presumption that it reflects the will of the
voter. And the purpose of the election law is to give effect, rather than frustrate, that will.
For this reason, extreme caution should be observed before a ballot is invalidated and
Page 1447/12/2008
doubts are to be resolved in favor of their validity.
1. Where only first name or surname is written—the vote for such candidate is
valid, if there is no other with the same name or surname for the same office.
Gonzaga vs. Seño, 7 SCRA 741, where there are 2 or more candidates having
the same first name or the same surname, writing only the first name or the surname is
not a valid vote for either of the candidates. In order that his vote may be counted, the
voter should add the correct name, surname, or middle initial that will identify the
candidate for whom he is voting.
Example: the incumbent’s name is Jose Santos, while the other’s candidate’s name
is Jose Santos, or Jose Cruz, or Ronaldo Santos. A vote for Jose Santos will be
144
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
counted for the incumbent candidate; a vote for Jose will be counted in favor of the
incumbent; or a vote for Santos will be counted in favor of the incumbent candidate.
¥say
Where a ballot contains only the maiden surname of a candidate, and there is
another candidate bearing the same surname, such ballot shall be counted in her favor.
(Conui-Omega vs. Samson, 9 SCRA 493)
Page 1457/12/2008
Exceptions:
a. Unless one is a surname of an incumbent in which case it shall be
counted in favor of the latter.
b. If the word or words written on the appropriate blank on the ballot is the
identical name or surname or full name, as the case may be, of 2 or more
candidates for the same office none of whom is an incumbent, the vote
shall be counted in favor of the candidate to whose ticket all the other
candidates voted for in the same ballot for the same constituency belongs.
c. When 2 or more words are written on different lines on the ballot all of
which are the surnames of 2 or more candidates bearing the same
surname for an office for which the law authorizes the election of more
than one and there are the same number of surnames written as there are
candidates with that surname, the vote shall be counted in favor of all
candidates bearing the surname.
5. Where single word is first name of candidate and surname of his opponent
—the vote shall be counted in favor of the latter (surname of the opponent).
(Corpus vs. Ibay, 84 Phil. 184)
6. Where 2 words are written, one of which is the first name of the candidate
and the other is the surname of his opponent—the vote shall not be counted
for either.
145
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
7. Idem sonam—a name or surname incorrectly written which, when read, has a
sound similar to the name or surname of a candidate when correctly written shall
be counted in his favor. It is based on the principle that the misspelling of a name
or lack of skill in writing it, should not be taken as a ground for rejecting the votes
apparently intended for a candidate, so long as the intention of the voter appears
to be clear. This rule is liberally construed.]
¥say
8. Repetition of names in 2 or more line—when the name of a candidate appears
in a space of the ballot for an office which he is a candidate and in another space
for which he is not a candidate, it shall be counted in his favor for the office for
which he is a candidate and the vote for the office for which he is not a candidate
shall be considered as stray, except when it is used as a means to identify the
voter, in which case the whole ballot shall be void.
Page 1467/12/2008
correct surname of a candidate or the erroneous initial of the surname
accompanied by the correct first name of a candidate shall not annul the vote in
his favor.
146
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Certificate of Votes
¥say
Balindong vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 567, the Certificate of Votes (CV) is
evidenced not only of tampering, alteration, falsification or any other anomaly in the
preparation of the election returns but also of the votes obtained by the candidates.
Garay vs. COMELEC, 261 SCRA 222, the CV can never be a valid basis for
canvass; it can only be evidence to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any other
anomaly in the preparation of the election returns concerned, when duly authenticated.
A CV does not constitute sufficient evidence of the true and genuine results of the
elections; only election returns are. In like manner, neither is the tally board sufficient
Page 1477/12/2008
evidence of the real results of the election.
CANVASSING
Canvassing Bodies:
1. Congress—for President and VP
2. COMELEC—Senators and Regional Officials
3. Provincial Board of Canvassers—for Congressmen, Municipal Officials
4. District Board of Canvassers—Congressmen, Municipal officials
5. City and Municipal BOC—Congressmen, City and Municipal officials
6. Barangay Board of Canvassers—Barangay officials
COMELEC has direct control and supervision over the Board of Canvassers
except Congress. It may motu proprio relieve at any time and substitute any member of
the board of canvassers. (Section 227, OEC)
Prohibited Relationship: Related within the 4th civil degree by consanguinity or affinity
to any of the candidates whose votes will be canvassed by the Board, or to any member
of the same Board
Agujetas vs. CA, 261 SCRA 17, petitioners, members of the Board of Canvassers,
who proclaimed as the 8th winning candidate one who did not obtain the 8 th highest
number of votes, may be criminally prosecuted for violation of Section 231 of the OEC,
failure to proclaim the winning candidate.
147
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
COMELEC, G.R. No. 159369, March 3, 2004)
Belac vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 145802, April 24, 2001, Section 241 of the OEC
Page 1487/12/2008
provides that a pre-proclamation controversy refers to any question pertaining to or
affecting the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers which may be raised by any
candidate or by any registered political party or coalition of political parties before the
Board or directly with the COMELEC.
148
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
3. The ERs were prepared under duress, threats, coercion, or intimidation, or they
are obviously manufacture, or not authentic.
4. When substitute and fraudulent returns in controverted polling places were
canvassed, the results of which materially affected the standing of the aggrieved
candidates. (Section 243, OEC)
Issues #s 2, 3 and 4 are not applicable to election of President, VP, Senators and Members of the House of
Representatives. Only #1 is applicable to them.
¥say
General Rule: Candidates and registered political parties involve in an election are
allowed to file a pre-proclamation cases before the COMELEC.
Exception: Pre-proclamation cases are not allowed in elections for President, VP,
Senators, and Members of the HOR. However, this does not preclude the authority of
the appropriate canvassing body motu proprio or upon written complaint of an interested
person to correct manifest errors, question the composition or proceeding of the board
of canvassers and to determine the authenticity and due execution of certificates of
canvass as provided in Section 30 of RA 7166, as amended by RA 9369. (Pimentel III
Page 1497/12/2008
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178413, March 13, 2008)
“manifest errors”—the error must appear on the face of the Certificates of Canvass or
Election Returns sought to be corrected. It is one that is visible to the eye or obvious to
the understanding; that which is open, palpable, incontrovertible, needing no evidence
to make it more clear. (O’Hara vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 148941-42, March 12, 2002)
Correction of manifest errors has reference to errors in the election returns, in the
entries of the statement of votes by precinct per municipality, or in the certificate of
canvass. Some of the definition given for the word “manifest” are that “it is evident to the
eye and understanding, visible to the eye, that which is open, palpable, and
incontrovertible, needing no evidence to make it more clear, not obscure or hidden.
(Dela Llana vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 152080)
Espidol vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164922, October 11, 2005, COMELEC is with
authority to annul any canvass and proclamation illegally made. The fact that a
candidate illegally proclaimed has assumed office is not a bar to the exercise of such
power. It is also true that as a general rule, the proper remedy after proclamation of the
winning candidate for the position contested would be to file a regular election protest or
quo warranto except where the proclamation is null and void, the proclaimed
candidate’s assumption of office cannot deprive the COMELEC of the power to declare
such proclamation a nullity.
149
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Sandoval vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133842, January 26, 2000, the authority to rule on
petitions for correction of manifest error is vested in the COMELEC EN BANC. Section
7 of Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure provides that if the error is
discovered before proclamation, the board of canvassers may motu proprio, or upon
verified petition by any candidate, political party, organization or coalition of political
parties, after due notice and hearing, correct the errors committed. The aggrieved party
may appeal the decision of the board to the COMELEC and said appeal shall be heard
¥say
and decided by the COMELEC EN BANC. Section 5, however, of the same rule states
that a petition for correction of manifest errors may be filed directly with the Commission
en banc provided that such errors could not have been discovered during the
canvassing despite the exercise of due diligence and proclamation of the winning
candidate had already been made.
Page 1507/12/2008
There was election There was no election
Lagumbay vs, COMELEC, 16 SCRA 175, the election return was an obviously
manufactured return. The returns were palpably false as it was indeed statistically
improbable that all the eight candidates of one party garnered all the votes each of them
received exactly the same number, whereas all the 8 candidates of the other party got
precisely nothing. The Supreme Court enunciated the DOCTRINE OF STATISTICAL
IMPROBABILITY. It states that where there exists uniformity of tallies in favor of
candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking out of the opposing
candidates, as when all the candidates of one party received all the votes, each of
whom exactly the same number, and the opposing candidates got zero votes, the
election returns are obviously manufactured, contrary to all statistical probabilities, and
utterly improbable and clearly incredible.
The doctrine applies only when the improbability is shown on the face of the ER itself
and without regard to evidence aliunde or to evidence outside of the return.
150
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Piercing the Veil of Election Returns—
The general rule is that a pre-proclamation case before the COMELEC is,
logically, no longer viable after a proclamation has been made. However, this rule
admits of exceptions, as when the proclamation is null and void. The proclamation of
petitioner in this case is void for three (3) reasons: 1) it was based on a canvass that
should have been suspended with respect to the contested election returns; 2) it was
Page 1517/12/2008
done without prior COMELEC authorization which is required in view of the unresolved
objections of Talib to the inclusion of certain returns in the canvass; and 3) it was
predicated on a canvass that included unsigned election returns involving such number
of votes as will affect the outcome of the election. In this regard, it has long been
recognized that among the reliefs that the COMELEC may grant is to nullify a
proclamation or suspend the effect of one.
PROCLAMATION—
In the absence of an appeal, the Board of Canvassers shall proclaim the winner.
ELECTION OFFENSES
Prohibited Acts: (Sections 261, 262, OEC)
1. Vote buying and vote selling;
2. Conspiracy to bribe voters;
3. Wagering upon result of election;
151
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
4. Coercion of subordinates;
5. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other forms of coercion;
6. Coercion of election officials and employees;
7. Appointment of new employees, creation of new position, promotion, giving of salary increases;
8. Intervention of public officers and employees;
9. Undue influence;
10. Unlawful electioneering;
11. Others.
¥say
Good faith is not a defense. Election offenses are generally mala prohibita. Proof of
criminal intent is necessary. Good faith, ignorance or lack of malice is not a defense; the
commission of the prohibited act is sufficient.
Jurisdiction:
1. Investigation and prosecution—COMELEC—the investigating officer shall
resolve the case within five (5) days from submission.
2. Trial and decisions:
Page 1527/12/2008
RTC—exclusive original jurisdiction any criminal action or proceedings for
violation of OEC
Exception: offenses relating to failure to register or failure to vote (MTC)
ELECTION CONTEST—
Nature: special summary proceeding—to expedite the settlement of controversies
between candidates as to who receive the majority of legal votes.
Purpose: to ascertain the true will of the people
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
(2) distinct post-election remedies. They have one objective, i.e., to unseat
the winning candidate.
2. Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET)
Senators
3. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET)
Congressmen
4. COMELEC
Regional officials
¥say
Provincial officials
City officials
5. Regional Trial Court
Municipal officials
6. Metropolitan Trial court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and Municipal Trial Court
Barangay officials
Sangguniang Kabataan
Page 1537/12/2008
HRET Rules of Procedure shall prevail over the provisions of the Omnibus Election
Code. (Lazatin vs. HRET, 168 SCRA 391)
Pimentel III vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 178413, March 13, 2008, the SC has no
jurisdiction to entertain a petition for certiorari and mandamus on matters which may be
threshed out in an election contest. It is the SET which has exclusive jurisdiction to act
on the complaint involving, as it does, a contest relating to the election of a now
member of the Senate.
Appellate Jurisdiction
1. For decisions of RTC and MTC—appeal to COMELEC whose decision shall be
final and executor
2. For decisions of COMELEC—Petition for Review on Certiorari with SC within 30
days from receipt of decision on ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction or violation of due process
3. For decisions of Electoral Tribunal—Petition for Review on Certiorari with SC on
ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or
violation of due process
153
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
1. ELECTION PROTEST—filed by any candidate who has filed a COC and has
been voted upon for the same office on the grounds of:
Fraud;
Terrorism;
Irregularities; or
Illegal acts, committed before, during or after casting and counting of
votes
Filed within 10 days from proclamation of results of election
¥say
Death of Protestant—does not necessarily extinguish an election protest
Poe vs. Arroyo, PET Case No. 002, March 29, 2005, the widow of the
protestant has no status of real party in interest to substitute or intervene for the latter
who died during the pendency of the election protest.
Page 1547/12/2008
ordinary civil actions, because it involves not only the adjudication of the private interest
of the rival candidates but also the paramount need of dispelling once and for all the
uncertainty that beclouds the real choice of the electorate with respect to who shall
discharge the prerogatives of the office within their gift.
Villamor vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 169865, July 21, 2006, the filing of an
election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-
proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus
depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the
protestee or the validity of his proclamation.
2. QUO WARRANTO—filed by any registered voter in the constituency on the
grounds of:
Ineligibility; or
Disloyalty to the Republic
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
the legal votes and therefore is entitled install the protestant in his place.
to hold the office.
Filed by filed by any candidate who Filed by any registered voter in the
has filed a COC and has been voted constituency.
for.
The respondent may be unseated but
A protestee may be ousted and the the petitioner will not be seated.
¥say
protestant may seat in the office
vacated.
(Dumayas, Jr. vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 141952-53, April 20, 2001)
Page 1557/12/2008
elect; the court or tribunal cannot declare appointment; the court determines who of
the protestant as having been elected. the parties has legal title to the office.
The period for filing an election protest is suspended during the pendency of a pre-
proclamation controversy. (Gatchalian vs. COMELEC, 245 SCRA 208)
COUNTER-PROTEST—
A protestee may incorporate in his answer a counter-protest. It is tantamount to a
counterclaim in a civil action and may be presented as a part of the answer within the
time he is required to answer the protest, i.e., within five (5) days upon receipt of the
protest, unless a motion for extension is granted, in which case it must be filed before
the expiration of the extended time.
The counter-protest must be filed within the period provided by law, otherwise,
the forum loses its jurisdiction to entertain the belatedly filed counter-protest. The period
to be observed is within five (5) days from the time of the receipt of the copy of the
protest. The 5-day period is not only mandatory requirement of the law but also
jurisdictional so that the court is ousted to entertain counter-protest belatedly filed.
(Kho vs. COMELEC, 279 SCRA 463, September 25, 1997)
155
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Francis King Marquez vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127318, August 25, 1999, any
contest relating to the election of members of the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK),
including the Chairman—whether pertaining to their eligibility or the manner of their
election—is cognizable by MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs. Section 6 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2824 which provides that cases involving the eligibility or qualification of
SK candidates shall be decided by the City/Municipal Election Officers whose decision
shall be final, applies only to proceedings before the election. Before proclamation,
cases concerning the eligibility of SK Officers and members are cognizable by the
¥say
Election Officer. But after the election and proclamation, the same cases become quo
warranto cases cognizable by MTCs, MCTCs, and MeTCs. The distinction is based on
the principle that it is the proclamation which marks off the jurisdiction of the courts from
the jurisdiction of election officials.
Gementiza vs. COMELEC, 353 SCRA 724, March 6, 2001, the COMELEC EN BANC
shall decide motions for reconsideration only for “decisions” of a Division, meaning
those acts of final character. The interlocutory order ruled by the Division of
Page 1567/12/2008
COMELEC should be brought up to the Supreme Court thru Certiorari.
Only final orders of a Division may be raised before the COMELEC en banc is in
accordance with Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution which mandates that only
motions for reconsideration of final decisions shall be decided by the COMELEC en
banc.
Execution Pending Appeal—the trial court may grant a motion for execution pending
appeal because the mere filing of an appeal does not divest the trial court of its
jurisdiction over a case and to resolve pending incidents. Since the court and jurisdiction
to act on the motion at the time it was filed, that jurisdiction continued until the matter
was resolved, and was not lost by the subsequent action of the opposing party.
(Edding vs. COMELEC, 246 SCRA 502)
156
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Dulce Ann Hofer vs. HRET, G.R. No. 158833, May 12, 2004, by the very nature and
given the public interest involved in the determination of the result of an election, the
controversies arising from the canvassing must be resolved speedily, otherwise, the will
of the electorate will be frustrated.
Procedural rules in election cases are designed to achieve not only a correct but
also an expeditious determination of the popular will of the electorate.
¥say
Page 1577/12/2008
Article VI
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Legislative Power—
It is the power or competence of the legislative to propose, enact, ordain,
amend/alter, modify, abrogate or repeal laws. It is vested in the Congress which shall
consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to
the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
system of registered national,
than 2 years immediately regional and sectoral parties or
preceding the day of the organization.
election.
c. Sectoral Representatives—1/2
Term of office: 6 years—shall of the seats allocated to party-list
commence, unless otherwise provided representatives shall be filled, as
by law, at noon on the 30th day of June provided by law, by selection or
next following their election. election from the:
i. Labor;
Page 1587/12/2008
ii. Peasant;
Disqualifications: iii. Urban poor;
iv. Indigenous cultural
a. No Senator shall serve for
communities;
more than 2 consecutive v. Women;
terms. Voluntary vi. Youth; and
renunciation of the office for vii. Such other sectors as may be
any length of time shall not provided by law, except the
be considered as an religious sector.
interruption in the continuity
of his service for the full term Term of office: three (3) years, which shall
for which he was elected. begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at
(Section 4, Article VI) noon of June 30 next following their
election.
b. One who has been declared Qualifications:
by competent authority as 1. Natural-born citizen of the
insane or incompetent Philippines;
c. One who has been 2. At least 25 years of age on the day
sentenced by final judgment of the election;
for: 3. Able to read and write;
i. Subversion; 4. Registered voter in the district in
ii. Insurrection; which he shall be elected except the
iii. Rebellion; party-list representatives;
iv. Any offense for which 5. Resident of the district for a period
he has been sentenced of not less than 1 year immediately
to a penalty of not more preceding the day of the election;
than 18 months; or
158
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Electoral Tribunal: Senate
Electoral Tribunal (SET)—composed election;
d. Able to read and write;
of three (3) Supreme Court Justices
e. A bona fide member of the
and six (6) Senators—to act as sole party or organization which
judge of all contest relating to election he seeks to represent for at
returns and qualifications of their least ninety (90) days
respective members. preceding the day of the
election;
Removal: Thru EXPULSION by f. At least 25 years of age on
Page 1597/12/2008
the day of the election;
the Senate with the concurrence of
g. The political party, sector,
two-thirds (2/3) of all its members organization or coalition must
(Section 16, par. 3, Article VI) represent the marginalized
and underrepresented
groups.
h. Must comply with the
declared policy of enabling
Filipino citizens belonging to
marginalized and
underrepresented sectors to
be elected to the House of
Representatives;
i. Religious sector may not be
represented in the party-list
system;
j. A party or an organization
must not be disqualified
under Sec. 6, RA 7941;
k. The party or organization
must not be an adjunct of, or
a project organized or an
entity funded or assisted by
the government;
l. The party must not only
comply with the requirements
159
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
formulation and enactment of
appropriate legislation that
will benefit the nation as a
whole.
Page 1607/12/2008
organizations, or coalition he wants
represented in the HOR: provided, that a vote
cast for a party, organizations, or coalition not
entitled to be voted for shall not be counted.
Disqualifications:
a. Shall not serve for more than three (3)
consecutive terms. (Sec. 7, Article VI)
b. One who has been declared by
competent authority as insane or
incompetent
c. One who has been sentenced by final
judgment for:
i. Subversion;
ii. Insurrection;
iii. Rebellion;
iv. Any offense for which he
has been sentenced to a
penalty of not more than
18 months; or
v. A crime involving moral
turpitude, unless given
plenary pardon or granted
amnesty (Section 12, BP
160
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
881—Omnibus Election
Code)
d. For Party-List Representatives:
i. It is a religious sect or
denomination,
organization or
association organized for
religious purposes;
ii. It advocates violence or
¥say
unlawful means to seek its
goal;
iii. It is a foreign party or
organization;
iv. It is receiving support from
any foreign government,
foreign political party,
foundation, organization,
whether directly or
Page 1617/12/2008
through any of its officers
or members or indirectly
through third parties for
partisan election
purposes;
v. It violates or fails to
comply with laws, rules or
regulations relating to
elections;
vi. It declares untruthful
statement in its petition;
vii. It has ceased to exist for
at least one (1) year;
viii. It fails to participate in the
last two preceding
elections or fails to obtain
at least 2% of the votes
cast under the party-list
system in the two
preceding elections for the
constituency in which it
had registered. (Section 6, RA
7941)
Canvassing Board: COMELEC
Electoral Tribunal: House of Representative
Electoral Tribunal (HRET)—composed of nine
161
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Vacancy—Section 9, Article VI—In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of
Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner
prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House of Representatives thus
elected shall serve only for the unexpired term.
Salaries—Section 10, Article VI—The salaries of Senators and Members of the House
of Representatives shall be determined by law. No increase in said compensation shall
Page 1627/12/2008
take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and
the House of Representatives approving such increase.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST—all members of the Senate and the HOR shall, upon
assumption of office, make a full disclosure of their financial and business interests.
They shall notify the House concerned of a potential conflict of interest that may arise
from the filing of a proposed legislation of which they are author.
162
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The purpose is to prevent him from owing loyalty to another branch of the
government, to the detriment of the independence of the legislature and the doctrine of
separation of powers.
¥say
The prohibition is not absolute, what is not allowed is the simultaneous holding of
that office and the seat in the Congress. Any legislator may hold another office or
employment in the government provided he forfeits his position in the Congress.
Page 1637/12/2008
appointed to any office, which may have been created, or the emoluments thereof
increased during the term for which he was elected.
With this, even if the member of the Congress is willing to forfeit his seat therein,
he may not be appointed to any office in the government that has been created or the
emoluments thereof have been increased during his term. Such a position is forbidden
office. The purpose is to prevent trafficking in public office.
The appointment of the member of the Congress to the forbidden office is not
allowed only during the term for which he was elected, when such office was created or
its emoluments were increased. After such term, and even if the legislator is reelected,
the disqualification no longer applies and he may therefore be appointed to the office.
Privileges:
a. Freedom from arrest—while Congress is in session for offense punished by
not more than 6 years imprisonment (Article 145, RPC; Sec. 11, Art. VI)
b. Speech and Debate clause—not to be questioned nor held liable in any
other place for any speech or debate in Congress or in any committee
thereof. (Section 11, Article VI)
(See discussion under Parliamentary Immunity)
163
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300, the Court upheld the qualification of
Imelda Marcos, despite her own declaration in her certificate of candidacy that she had
¥say
resided in the district for only seven (7) months, because of the following:
a. A minor follows the domicile of his parents; Tacloban became her domicile of
origin by operation of law when her father brought their family to Leyte;
b. Domicile of origin is lost only when there is actual removal or change of
domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the former residence and
establishing a new one, and acts which correspond with the purpose; in the
absence of clear and positive proof of the concurrence of all these, the
domicile of origin should be deemed to continue;
Page 1647/12/2008
c. The wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile because the
term “residence” in Civil Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law;
when Mrs. Marcos married Ferdinand Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile
of origin and merely gained a new home, not a domicilium necessarium;
d. Even assuming that she gained a new domicile after her marriage and
acquired the right to choose a new one only after her husband died, her acts
following her return to the country clearly indicate that she chose Tacloban,
her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice.
Coquilla vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 151914, July 31, 2002, the SC ruled that he
petitioner had not been a resident of Oras, Eastern Samar, for at least one year prior to
the May 14, 2001 elections. Although Oras was his domicile of origin, petitioner lost the
same when he became a US citizen after enlisting in the US Navy. From then on, until
November 10, 2000, when he re-acquired Philippine citizenship through repatriation,
petitioner was an alien without any right to reside in the Philippines.
In Caasi vs. COMELEC, it was held that the immigration to the US by virtue of the
acquisition of a “green card” constitutes abandonment of domicile in the Philippines.
164
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
REPUBLIC ACT 7941—
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF PARTY-LIST REPRESENTATIVES
THROUGH THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
Page 1657/12/2008
Nature of Party-List System
1. The party-list system is a social tool designed not only to give more law to the great
masses of our people who have less in life, but also to enable them to become
veritable lawmakers themselves, empowered to participate directly in the enactment
of laws designed to benefit them. It intends to make the marginalized and the
underrepresented not merely passive recipients of he State’s benevolence, but
active participants in he mainstream of representative democracy. Thus, allowing all
individuals and groups, including those which now dominate district elections, to
have the same opportunity to participate in party-list elections would desecrate this
lofty objective and mongrelize the social justice mechanisms into an atrocious
veneer for traditional politics.
2. Crucial to the resolution of this case is the fundamental social justice principle that
those who have less in life should have more in law. The party-list system is one
such tool intended to benefit those who have less in life. It gives the great masses of
our people genuine hope and genuine power. It is a message to the destitute and
the prejudiced, and even those in the underground, that change is possible. It is an
invitation for them to come out of their limbo and seize the opportunity.
Clearly, therefore, the Court cannot accept the submissions xxx that the party-list
system is, without any qualification, open to all. Such position does not only weaken
the electoral chances of the marginalized and underrepresented; it also prejudices
165
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
them. It would gut the substance of the party-list system. Instead of generating hope,
it would create a mirage. Instead of enabling the marginalized, it would further
weaken them and aggravate their marginalization. (Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW
Labor Party vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001)
¥say
the House of Representative, including those elected under the party-list;
3. The Three (3) Seat Limit—each qualified party, regardless of the number of
votes it actually obtained, is entitled to a maximum of 3 seats; that is, one (1)
Page 1667/12/2008
qualifying and two (2) additional seats.
2. They must comply with the declared statutory policy of enabling “Filipino citizens
belonging to marginalized and underrepresented sectors x x x to be elected to
the House of Representatives.” In other words, while they are not disqualified
166
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
merely on the ground that they are political parties, they must show, however,
that they represent the interests of the marginalized and underrepresented.
3. In view of the objections directed against the registration of Ang Buhay Hayaang
Yumabong, which is allegedly a religious group, the Court notes the express
constitutional provision that the religious sector may not be represented in the
party-list system. The prohibition is on any religious organization registering as
political party not against a priest running as a candidate.
¥say
4. A party or organization must not be disqualified under section 6 of RA 7941
which enumerates the grounds for disqualification.
Page 1677/12/2008
independent of the government.
6. The party must not only comply with the requirements of the law; its nominees
must likewise do so;
7. Not only the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and
underrepresented sectors; so also must its nominees; and
Aklat vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162203, April 24, 2004, the COMELEC has the
power to promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to enforce and administer
election laws. This power includes the determination, within the parameters fixed by
law, of appropriate periods for the accomplishment of certain pre-election acts like filing
petitions for registration under the party-list system. This is exactly what the COMELEC
did when it issued its Resolution No. 6320 declaring September 30, 2003, as the
deadline for filing petitions for registration under the party-list system.
167
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
eligible for nomination as party-list representative under his new party or organization.
Vacancy: In case of vacancy in the seat reserved for party-list representatives, the
vacancy shall be automatically filled by the next representative from the list of nominees
in the order submitted to the COMELEC by the same party, organization or coalition,
who shall serve for the unexpired term. If the list is exhausted, the party, organization or
coalition concerned shall submit additional nominees.
Citizen’s Battle Against Corruption (CIBAC) vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172103, April
Page 1687/12/2008
13, 2007, the correct formula in ascertaining the entitlement to additional seats of the
first party and other qualified party-list groups was clearly explicated in Veterans
wherein the multiplier used was the “number of additional seats allocated to the first
party.”
Within three (3) years following the return of every census, the Congress shall
make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this
section.
168
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Mariano vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 118627, March 7, 1995, the Court held that the
Constitution does not preclude Congress from increasing its membership by passing a
law other than a general apportionment law. In fact, in Tobias vs. Abalos, 239 SCRA
106, the case involved the division of San Juan and Mandaluyong into two (2)
representative districts. With the elevation of Mandaluyong from municipality into a
highly urbanized city, both Mandaluyong and San Juan were recognized by RA 7675 as
distinct representative districts. This was challenged on the ground that RA 7675 did not
mention any census indicating that San Juan and Mandaluyong had the minimal
¥say
requirement of 250,000 inhabitants needed to constitute a district. Neither did the
challengers, however, give any evidence that the respective populations of each of the
two political units were less than the number required. Hence the court presumed that
Congress had made due consideration of the minimum requirement. It ruled that
reapportionment of legislative districts may be made through a special law. To hold that
reapportionment can be made only through a general law would create an inequitable
situation where a new city or province created by Congress will be denied legislative
representation for an indeterminate period of time. That intolerable situation would
Page 1697/12/2008
deprive the people in the city or province a particle of that sovereignty. Sovereignty
cannot admit subtraction; it is indivisible. It must be forever whole or it is not
sovereignty.
In Montejo vs. COMELEC, it was held that while concededly the conversion of Biliran
into a regular province brought about an imbalance in the distribution of voters and
inhabitants in the 5 districts of Leyte, the issue involves reapportionment of legislative
districts, and Petitioner’s remedy lies with Congress. This Court cannot itself make the
reapportionment as petitioner would want.
1. Regular—convene once every year. The 4th Monday of July until 30 days before
the start of new regular session (Section 14, Article VI)—adjournment is allowed
—30 days before the opening of its next regular session—this is compulsory;
2. Special—
a. Called by the President (Sec. 15, Article VI)—the President has the power
to call special session; without the call of President—impeachment
169
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
c. Decide on the disability of the President because the majority of all the
members of the Cabinet has disputed his assertion that he is able to
discharge the powers and duties of his office (Section 11, par. 3, Article
VII)
¥say
d. To revoke or extend the Presidential Proclamation of Martial Law or
suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Section 18, article VII)
3. Joint—
a. Voting separately—
Page 1707/12/2008
iii. Confirming nomination of Vice-President (Section 9, Article VI);
iv. Declaring existence of state of war (Section 23, Article VI); and
b. Voting jointly—
Adjournment Sine Die—the interval between the session of one Congress and that of
another; congress must “stop the clock” at midnight of the last day of session in order to
validly pass a law
170
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
The interpretation of disorderly behavior—is the prerogative of the House
concerned and cannot be judicially reviewed.
In Osmeña vs. Pendatun, 109 Phil 863, the determination of the acts which
constitutes disorderly behavior is within the full discretionary authority of the House
concerned, and the Court will not review such determination, the same being a political
question.
Page 1717/12/2008
Members of Congress may also be suspended by the Sandiganbayan or by the
Office of the Ombudsman. (Paredes vs. SAndiganbayan, G. R. No. 118364, August
10, 1995; Santiago vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 128055, April 18, 2001)
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
171
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
A Senator or member of the HOR shall, in all offenses punishable by not more
than 6 years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session.
No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or
debate in the Congress or in any other committee thereof.
¥say
Sec. 11, Art. VI)—it is intended to ensure representation of the constituents of
the member of the Congress by preventing attempts to keep him from
attending its sessions. The present Constitution adheres to the restrictive rule
minus the obligation of Congress to surrender the Member of the House of
Representatives to the custody of law. The requirement that he should be
attending sessions or committee meetings has also been removed. For
relatively minor offenses, it is enough that Congress is in session. (People
vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, February 20, 2000)
Page 1727/12/2008
“in session”—not day to day; refers to the entire duration of the session from
its opening until its adjournment.
Section 16, par. 3, Article VI—Each House may determine the rules of its
proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the
concurrence of 2/3 of all its members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of
suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed 60 days.
People vs. Jalosjos, 324 SCRA 689, the immunity from arrest or detention of
Senators and Members of the HOR arises from a provision of the Constitution. The
history of the provision shows that the privilege has always been granted in a restrictive
sense. The provision granting an exemption as a special privilege cannot be extended
172
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
beyond the ordinary meaning of its term. It may not be extended by intendment,
implication or equitable considerations. x x x
Because of the broad coverage of felony and breach of the peace, the exemption
applied only to civil arrests. A congressman like the accused-appellant, convicted under
Title 11 of the Revised Penal Code could not claim parliament immunity from arrest. He
was subject to the same general laws governing all persons still to be tried or whose
convictions were pending appeal.
¥say
The present Constitution adheres to the same restrictive rule minus the obligation
of Congress to surrender the subject Congressman to the custody of law. The
requirement that he should be attending sessions or committee meetings has also been
removed. For relatively minor offenses, it is enough that Congress is in session.
Accused-appellant argues that a member of Congress’ function to attend
sessions is underscored by Section 16 (2), Article VI of the Constitution which states
that—
Page 1737/12/2008
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but
a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the
attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such
penalties, as such House may provide.
However, the accused-appellant has not given any reason why he should be
exempted from the operation of Section 11, Article VI. The members of Congress
cannot compel absent members to attend sessions if the reason for absence is
legitimate a one. The confinement of a Congressman charged with a crime punishable
by imprisonment of more than 6 years is not merely authorized by law, it has
constitutional foundations.
When the voters of his district elected the accused-appellant to Congress, they
did so with full awareness of the limitations on his freedom of action. They did so with
the knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results which he could
accomplish within the confines of prison. To give a more drastic illustration, if voters
elect a person with full knowledge that he is suffering from a terminal illness, they do so
knowing that any time, he may no longer serve his full term in office.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
It is also the right of the President and high-level executive branch officers to
withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. (Rozell)
¥say
2. Informer’s privilege—privilege of the government not to disclose the identity of
persons who furnish information in violations of law to officers charged with
the enforcement of the law.
3. Generic privilege—for internal deliberations has been said to attach to intra-
governmental documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and
deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions
and policies are formulated.
Page 1747/12/2008
In determining the validity of a claim of privilege, the question that must be asked
is not only whether the requested information falls within one of the traditional privileges,
but also whether that privilege should be honored in a given procedural setting.
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 169777, April 20, 2006, executive privilege,
whether asserted against Congress, the courts, or the public, is recognized only in
relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character. While executive privilege
is a constitutional concept, a claim thereof may be valid or not depending on the ground
invoked to justify it and the context in which it is made. Noticeably absent is any
recognition that executive officials are exempt from the duty to disclose information by
the mere fact of being executive officials. Indeed, the extraordinary character of the
exemptions indicates that the presumption inclines heavily against executive secrecy
and in favor of disclosure.
174
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Commission on Appointments—(Section 18, Article VI)
The Commission is independent of the two Houses of Congress; its employees
are not, technically, employees of Congress. It has the power to promulgate its own
rules of proceedings.
Powers: Act on all appointments submitted to it within 30 session days of Congress
Page 1757/12/2008
from their submission; to act on Presidential appointments; has power to promulgate its
own rules of proceedings.
Composition:
Senate President—acts as Ex-Officio Chairman
12 Senators and 12 Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each house
on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and organizations
registered under the party-list system represented therein.
Chairman shall not vote except in case of a tie.
In Guingona vs. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789, a political party must have at least
two (2) elected senators for every seat in the Commission on Appointments. Thus,
where there are two or more political parties represented in the Senate, a political
party/coalition with a single senator in the Senate cannot constitutionally claim a seat in
the Commission on Appointments. It is not mandatory to elect 12 senators to the
Commission; what the Constitution requires is that there must be at least a majority of
the entire membership.
POWERS OF CONGRESS
Classification:
175
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
1. LEGISLATIVE—
General plenary power;
Specific power of appropriation;
Taxation and expropriation;
Legislative investigations (Section 21, Art. VI); and
Question hour (Section 22, Art. VI).
¥say
Canvass presidential election (Section 4, Art. VII);
Declare the existence of state of war (Section 23, par.1, Art. VI);
Exercise delegation of emergency powers;
Call special election for President and VP (Section 10, Art. VII);
Give concurrence to treaties and amnesties (Sections 19 and 21, Art. VII);
Propose constitutional amendments (constituent power) (Sections 1-2, Art. XVII);
Confirm certain appointments (Section 9 and 16, Art. VII);
Impeach (Section 2, Art. XI);
Decide the disability of President because majority of the Cabinet disputes his
Page 1767/12/2008
assertion that he is able to discharge his duties (Section 11, Art. VII);
Revoke or extend proclamation of suspension of privilege of writ of habeas corpus or
declaration of martial law (Section 18, Art. VII);
Set the rules regarding the utilization of natural resources (Section 2, Art. XII).
2. PROCEDURAL—
a. Only one subject, to be stated in the title of the bill (Sec. 26, par. 1, Article VI);
176
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
b. Three (3) readings on separate days; printed copies of the bill in its final form
distributed to members 3 days before its passage, except if President certifies to
its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency; upon its last
reading, no amendment allowed and the vote thereon taken immediately and the
yeas and nays entered into the Journal (Section 26, paragraph 2, Article VI;
c. Appropriation, revenue and tariff bills shall originate exclusively in the House of
Representatives.
¥say
Page 1777/12/2008
177
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Bills exclusively originated in the House of Representative: (APRIL)
1. Appropriation bills;
2. Private bills;
3. Revenue or tariff bills;
4. Bills authorizing Increase in public debts; and
5. Bills of Local application.
Page 1787/12/2008
However, although these bills are required to originate exclusively in the House
of Representatives, the Senate may propose or concur with amendments (Sec. 24, Art.
VI). Amendments may include amendments by substitution. (Tolentino vs. Secretary
of Finance)
If the nays prevail, then it is about time that a new bicameral committee be
created until the bill will be accepted by both houses. (Bill is not killed.)
Except: when the President certifies to the necessity of the immediate enactment of
the bill to meet the public calamity and emergency political question—not subject to
judicial review
Section 26 (par. 1), Article VI—every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only
one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
178
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
petition or otherwise if they shall so desire.
Agripino A. De Guzman, Jr., et al. vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118, July 19, 2000,
Section 26 (1), Article VI is sufficiently complied with where the title is comprehensive
enough to embrace the general objective it seeks to achieve, and if all the parts of the
Page 1797/12/2008
statute are related and germane to the subject matter embodied in the title or so long as
the same are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and title.
Section 26, par. 2 of Article VI—No bill passed by either House shall become a law
unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its
final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except
when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a
public calamity or emergency.
Once the bill becomes an enrolled bill, it is conclusive upon the court of its due
enactment. Courts may no longer validly inquire into the bill because of the doctrine of
separation of powers.
Casco (Phil) Chemical Co. vs. Gimenez, 7 SCRA 347, if a mistake was made
in the printing of the bill before it was certified by Congress and approved by the
President, the remedy is amendment or corrective legislation, not a judicial decree.
179
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
laws, that it was passed by the Congress. the respect due to co-equal and
independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon the
assurance, and to accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in
the manner stated; leaving the court to determine, when the question properly
arises, whether the Act, so authenticated, is in conformity with the Constitution.
(Marshall Field & Co. vs. Clark, 143 US 649)
Page 1807/12/2008
differences between the Senate and the House—capable of producing unexpected
result—bill will have to be sent back to both houses and subject to votation.
A conference committee may deal generally with the subject matter or it may be
limited to resolving the precise differences between the two houses. Even where the
conference committee is not by rule limited in its jurisdiction, legislative custom severely
limits the freedom with which new subject matter can be inserted in to the conference
bill. But occasionally it produces unexpected results, results beyond its mandate. These
e4xcursions occurs even where the rules impose strict limitations on conference
committee jurisdiction. This is symptomatic of an authoritarian power of conference
committee. (Philippine Judges Association vs. Prado, 227 SCRA 703, November
11, 1993)
Quorum—A majority of each House, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day
and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such
penalties as such house may determine.
180
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Avelino vs. Cuenco, 83 Phil 17, the basis in determining the existence of a
quorum in the Senate shall be the total number of Senators who are in the country and
within the coercive jurisdiction of the Senate.
Arroyo vs. De Venecia, G.R. No. 127255, June 26, 1998, the SC declared that
the question of quorum cannot be raised repeatedly, especially when a quorum is
obviously present for the purpose of delaying the business of the House.
¥say
LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL—regarded as conclusive with respect to matters that are
required by the Constitution to be recorded therein. With respect to other matters, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the journals have also been accorded conclusive
effects. Thus, in US vs. Pons, this Court spoke of the imperatives of public policy for
regarding the Journals as “public memorials of the most permanent character,” thus:
“They should be public, because all are required to conform to them; they should be
permanent, that rights acquired today upon the faith of what has been declared to be
Page 1817/12/2008
law shall not be destroyed tomorrow, or at some remote period of time, by facts resting
only in memory of individuals. (Arroyo vs. De Venecia, 277 SCRA 268)
President’s Options:
1. Sign and the bill becomes a law.
2. Vetoes the bill, it does not become a law.
2/3 votes of all its Members (for Congress to override)
3. Inaction—the bill automatically becomes a law within 30 days upon receipt of the
bill from Congress.
181
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
There is no such thing as “pocket veto” here in the Philippines because inaction by
the President for 30 days never produces a veto even if Congress is in recess. The
President must still act to veto the bill and communicate his veto to the Congress
without need of returning the vetoed bill with his veto message.
¥say
b. The reason he does not return the bill to the Congress is that Congress is not
in session.
PRESIDENTIAL VETO—
Page 1827/12/2008
The act of the Executive in vetoing the particular provisions is an exercise of a
constitutionally vested power. But even as the Constitution grants the power, it also
provides limitations to its exercise. The veto power is not absolute.
xxx
The OSG is correct when it states that the Executive must veto a bill in its
entirety or not at all. He or she cannot act like an editor crossing out specific lines,
provisions, or paragraphs in a bill that he or she dislikes. In the exercise of the veto
power, it is generally veto, however, when it comes to appropriation, revenue or tariff
bills, the Administration needs the money to run the machinery of the government and it
can not veto the entire bill even if it may contain objectionable features. The President
is, therefore, compelled to approve into law the entire bill, including its undesirable
parts. It is for this reason that the Constitution has wisely provided the “item veto power”
to avoid inexpedient riders being attached to an indispensable appropriation or revenue
measures.
The Constitution provides that only a particular item or items may be vetoed. The
power to disapprove any item or items in an appropriation bill does not grant the
authority to veto a part of an item and to approve the remaining portion of the same
item. (Bengzon vs. Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, April 15, 1992)
182
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
General rule: Selective/partial veto is not allowed. The President may not veto a
provision of the bill without vetoing the whole/entire bill itself.
Item—Refers to the particulars, the details, the distinct and severable parts of the bill. It
¥say
is an indivisible sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose.
It was invoked in the case of Gonzalez vs. Macaraig wherein President Aquino
Page 1837/12/2008
vetoed a provision of the general appropriation bill. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the veto power of the President. Section 25 (2), Article VI—No provision or enactment
shall be embraced in the general appropriation bill unless it relates specifically to some
particular appropriation therein.—Items which the President does not object, otherwise it
becomes an inappropriate provision—it may be treated as an item—subject to the item
veto of the President.
Appropriation Reserves—
Section 37 of the Administrative Code authorizes the Budget Secretary to
establish reserves against appropriations to provide for contingencies and
emergencies which may arise during the year. This is merely expenditure
deferral, not suspension, since the agencies concerned can still draw on the
reserves if the fiscal outlook improves.
183
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Local Chief Executives have veto power except the Punong Barangay.
POWER OF APPROPRIATION—
The spending power, called the “power of purse” belongs to the Congress,
subject only to the veto power of the President. it carries with it a power to specify the
project or activity to be funded under the appropriation law.
Page 1847/12/2008
authorize release of public funds from the treasury.
The existence of appropriations and the availability of funds are indispensable
pre-requisites to or conditions sine qua non for the execution of government contracts.
(COMELEC vs. Judge Quijano Padilla and Photokina Marketing Corp., G.R. No.
151992, September 18, 2000)
Classification:
1. General Appropriation Law—passed annually, intended to provide for the
financial operations of the entire government during one fiscal period.
2. Special Appropriation Law—designed for a specific purpose.
184
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
however:
a. President;
b. Senate President;
c. Speaker of the House;
d. Chief Justice; and
e. Heads of Constitutional Commissions—
may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general
appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items
Page 1857/12/2008
of their respective appropriations.
6. Prohibition against appropriations for sectarian benefit; and
7. Automatic re-appropriation.
POWER OF TAXATION
Limitations:
1. Rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable and Congress shall evolve a
progressive system of taxation.
2. Charitable institutions, etc., and all lands, buildings and improvements
actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational
purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
3. All revenues and assets of non-stock, non-profit educational institutions used
actually, directly and exclusively for educational purposes shall be exempt
from taxes and duties.
4. Law granting tax exemption shall be passed only with the concurrence of a
majority of all the members of Congress.
185
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
HRET—although attached to the Congress, has separate and distinct personality. It was
created as a non-partisan court. It must be independent of Congress and devoid of
partisan influence and consideration. Members of HRET, once appointed thereto, they
shall be accorded thereto of security of tenure to ensure their impartiality and
independence.
Bondoc vs. Pineda, 201 SCRA 792, “Disloyalty to the party” and “Breach of party
¥say
discipline” are not valid grounds for the expulsion of a member. HRET members enjoy
security of tenure; their membership may not be terminated except for a just cause such
as the expiration of congressional term, death, resignation from the political party,
formal affiliation with another political party, or removal for other valid causes.
Pimentel vs. HRET, G.R. No. 141489, November 29, 2002, the SC said that even
assuming that the party-list representatives comprise a sufficient number and have
agreed to designate common nominees to the HRET and Commission on
Page 1867/12/2008
Appointments, their primary recourse clearly rests with the House of Representatives
and not with the Court. Only if the House fails to comply with the directive of the
Constitution on proportional representation of political parties in the HRET and
Commission on Appointments can the party-list representatives seek recourse from this
Court through judicial review. Under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction,
prior recourse to the House is necessary before the petitioners may bring the case to
Court.
Guerrero vs. COMELEC, 336 SCRA 458 (July 26, 2000)— While the Congress is
vested with the power to declare valid or invalid certificate of candidacy, its refusal to
exercise the power following the proclamation and assumption of Fariñas is a
recognition of the jurisdictional boundaries separating the COMELEC and the HRET.
Under Article VI, Section 17 of the Constitution, the HRET has the sole and exclusive
186
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
jurisdiction over all contests relative to the elections, returns and qualifications of
members of the House of Representatives. Thus, once a winning candidate has been
proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a member of the HOR, COMELEC’s
jurisdiction over election contests relating to his elections, returns and qualifications
ends, and the HRET’s own jurisdiction begins. Thus, the COMELEC’s decision to
discontinue exercising jurisdiction over the case is justifiable, in deference to the
HRET’s own jurisdiction and functions.
¥say
Appeal from SET or HRET Decision
The Constitution mandates that the HRET and the SET shall each, respectively,
be the sole judge of all contest relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of
their respective members.
The Court has stressed that so long as the Constitution grants the HRET the
power to be the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and
qualifications of members of the House of Representatives, any final action taken by the
Page 1877/12/2008
HRET on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a rule, not be reviewed by the Supreme
Court. The power granted to the Electoral Tribunal excludes the exercise of any
authority on the part of this Court that would in any wise restricts it or curtail it or even
affect the same.
In Robles vs. HRET, the Court has explained that while the judgments of the
Tribunal are beyond judicial interference, the Court may do so, however, but only “in the
exercise of the SC’s so-called extraordinary jurisdiction upon determination that the
Tribunal’s decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or
with grave abuse of discretion, or upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and
improvident use by the Tribunal of its power as constitutes a denial of due process of
law, or upon demonstration of a very clear unmitigated error, manifestly constituting
such grave abuse of discretion that there has to be remedy for such abuse.
The Court does not venture into the perilous area of correcting perceived errors
of independent branches of government; it comes in only when it has to vindicate a
denial of due process or correct an abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less
than the Constitution itself calls for remedial action. (Libanan vs. HRET, 283 SCRA
520)
187
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Section 21, Article VI—The Senate or the HOR or any of its respective committees
may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules
and procedure. The right of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
Constitutional limitation on inquiries in aid of legislation
¥say
Power to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation—Investigatorial Power—not
absolute; subject judicial review in view of the expanded power of the court to determine
whether there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
Limitations:
1. The inquiry must be in aid of legislation;
2. It must be in accordance with duly published rules and procedure of the House
Page 1887/12/2008
concerned; and
3. The right of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
respected.
These two (2) sections should not be considered as pertaining to the same
power of Congress. One specifically relates to the power to conduct inquiry in aid of
legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation,
while the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the objective of
which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Senate vs. Ermita, G.R. No., 169777, April 20, 2006, while attendance to
Congressional hearings is discretionary on the part of the department heads during
“question hour,” such is not in the case in inquiries in aid of legislation, except upon a
valid and express claim of “executive privilege.”
The principle of separation of powers is the reason why executive officials may
not be compelled to attend hearings when Congress exercises its oversight functions.
Though, this is not the case when the Congress exercises its power of inquiry in aid of
Page 1897/12/2008
legislation. Sections 21 and 22 of Article VI, therefore, while closely related and
complementary to each other, should not be considered as pertaining to the same
power of Congress. one specifically relates to the power to conduct an inquiry in aid of
legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be used for legislation, while
the other pertains to the power to conduct a question hour, the object of which is to
obtain information in pursuit of Congress’ oversight function.
Sabio vs. Sen. Gordon, G.R. No. 174340, October 17, 2006, the Congress’ power of
inquiry, being broad, encompasses everything that concerns the administration of
existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It even extends to
government agencies created by Congress and officers whose positions are within the
power of Congress to regulate or even abolish. A mere provision of law cannot pose a
limitation to the broad power of Congress, in the absence of any constitutional basis.
189
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
questions, but may cover matters related thereto. When the scrutiny of the State or the
public interest so requires, the appearance shall be conducted in executive session
Arnault vs. Nazareno, 87 Phil. 29—the inquiry, to be within the jurisdiction of the
legislative body making it, must be material or necessary to the exercise of a power in it
vested by the Constitution, such as to legislate or to expel a member.
(The power to conduct Inquiry is integral and implied of legislative power)
¥say
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, G.R. No. 167173,
December 27, 2007, the mere filing of a criminal or an administrative complaint before
a court or a quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct of legislative
investigation. Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subvert any intended inquiry by
Congress through the convenient ploy of instituting a criminal or administrative
complaint.
Page 1907/12/2008
Congressional Oversight Functions (Makalintal vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 157013,
July 10, 2003)
It embraces all activities undertaken by Congress to enhance its understanding
of and influence over the implementation of legislation it has enacted. Clearly, oversight
concerns post-enactment measures undertaken by Congress:
a. To monitor bureaucratic compliance with program objectives;
b. To determine whether agencies are properly administered;
c. To eliminate executive waste and dishonesty;
d. To prevent executive usurpation of authority; and
e. To assess executive conformity with the congressional perception of public
interest.
The power of oversight has been held to be intrinsic in the grant of legislative
power itself and integral to the checks and balances inherent in a democratic system of
government.
The oversight power has also been used to ensure the accountability of
regulatory commissions like the SEC. Unlike other ordinary administrative agencies,
these bodies are independent from the executive branch and are outside the executive
department in the discharge of their functions.
190
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
It is based primarily on the power of appropriation of Congress. xxx But
legislative scrutiny does not end in budget hearings. Congress can ask the heads of
departments to appear before and be heard by either the House of Congress on any
matter pertaining to their department.
Page 1917/12/2008
probity required of all public servants.
b. Congressional investigation—involves a more intense digging of facts. It is
recognized under Section 21, Article VI. Even in the absence of constitutional
mandate, it has been held to be an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the
legislative functions.
Congress exercises supervision over the executive agencies through its veto
power. It typically utilizes veto provisions when granting the President or an executive
agency the power to promulgate regulations with the force of law. These provisions
require the President or an agency to present the proposed regulations to Congress,
which retains a “right” to approve or disapprove any regulation before it takes effect.
Such legislative veto provisions usually provide that a proposed regulation will become
a law after the expiration of a certain period of time, only if Congress does not
affirmatively disapprove of the regulation in the meantime. Less frequently, the statute
provides that a proposed regulation will become a law if Congress affirmatively
approves it.
191
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
POWER OF CONCURRENCE—
The Constitution requires the concurrence of the Congress to an amnesty and to
a treaty.
¥say
The Congress, by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session assembled, voting
separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
Page 1927/12/2008
delegated. The rule which forbids the delegation of legislative power, however, is not
absolute and inflexible. It admits of exceptions. An exception sanctioned by immemorial
practice permits the legislative body to delegate its licensing power to certain persons,
municipal corporations, towns, boards, councils, commissions, commissioners, auditors,
bureaus and directors. Such licensing power includes the power to promulgate
necessary rules and regulations. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9,
2004)
Article VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
EXECUTIVE POWER—
It is the legal and political functions of the President involving the exercise of
discretion. It is vested in the President of the Philippines. It is the power to enforce and
administer laws.
192
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines. (Section
1, Article VII) In National Electrification Administration vs. CA, G.R. No. 143481,
February 15, 2002, the President is vested with the power to execute, administer, and
carry out laws into practical operation. Executive power, then, is the power of carrying
out the laws into practical operation and enforcing their due observance.
The President may not veto a law enacted thirty-five (35) years before his or her
¥say
term of office. Neither may the President set aside or reverse a final and executory
judgment of the Supreme Court through the exercise of veto power. (Bengzon vs.
Drilon, 208 SCRA 133, April 15, 1992)
PRESIDENT VICE-PRESIDENT
Q U A L I F IC A T I O NS
Page 1937/12/2008
1. Natural-born citizen;
2. Registered voter;
3. Able to read and write;
4. At least 40 years of age on the day of election; and
5. Resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the
election.
TERM OF OFFICE
Six (6) years
DISQUALIFICATIONS
1. Not eligible for any re-election; 1. Shall not serve for more than two (2)
2. No person who has succeeded as consecutive terms (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
President and has served as such
for more than 4 years shall be
qualified for election to the same
office at any time (Sec. 4, Art. VII);
General Disqualifications*
193
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
5. Shall not be financially interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by the Government, including GOCCs;
6. Shall avoid conflict of interest in conduct of office;
7. Shall avoid nepotism. (Section 13, Article VII)
PRIVILEGES
1. Official residence; 1. Salary shall not be decreased during
2. Salary is determined by law and his tenure;
not to be decreased during his 2. No need for Commission on
tenure (Section 6, Article VII); Appointment confirmation for Cabinet
Page 1947/12/2008
3. Immunity from suit for official acts. post (Section 3, Article VII)
CANVASSING BOARD
Congress (Senate and House of Representatives); in case of tie, Congress by
majority vote shall select.
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL
Supreme Court (en banc)
REMOVAL
Impeachment only
ELECTION—
(Section 4, Article VII) Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for
President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May.
Even after Congress has adjourned its regular session, it may continue to
perform this constitutional duty of canvassing the presidential and vice-presidential
election results without need of any call for special session by the President. The joint
public session of both Houses of Congress convened by express directive of Section 4,
Article VII of the Constitution to canvass the votes for and proclaim the newly-elected
President and Vice-President has not, and cannot, adjourn sine die until it has
accomplished its constitutionally mandated tasks. For only when a board of canvassers
194
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
has completed its functions it is rendered functus officio. (Pimentel, Jr. vs. Joint
Committee of Congress to Canvass the votes cast for President and VP, G.R. No.
163783, June 22, 2004)
¥say
prerogative of NAMFREL to conduct an “unofficial” count, but also taints the integrity of
the envelopes containing the election returns and the election returns themselves. Thus,
if the COMELEC is proscribed from conducting an official canvass of the votes cast for
the President and VP, the COMELEC is, with more reason, prohibited from making an
“unofficial” canvass of said votes. (Brillantes vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 163193, June
15, 2004)
Page 1957/12/2008
Immunity from suit:
After his tenure, the President cannot invoke immunity from suit for civil damages
arising out of acts done by him while he was President which were not performed in the
exercise of his official duties. (Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March
2001)
Rules on Succession:
a. Vacancy at the beginning of the term
i. Death or permanent disability of the President-elect: VP-elect shall become
President
ii. President-elect fails to qualify: VP-elect shall act as President until the
President-elect shall have qualified
iii. President shall not have been chosen: VP-elect shall act as President until a
President shall have been chosen and qualified.
iv. No President and VP chosen nor shall have qualified, or both shall died or
become permanently disabled: The President of the Senate, or in case of his
disability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall act as President
until a President or a VP shall have been chosen and qualified. In the event of
inability of the officials mentioned, Congress shall, by law, provide for the
manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a
President or VP shall have qualified.
195
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
At 10 o’clock in the morning of the 3rd day after the vacancy occurs, Congress
shall convene without need of a call, and within 7 days enact a law calling for
a special election to elect a President and a VP to be held not earlier than 45
nor later than 60 days from the time of such call. The bill shall be deemed
certified and shall become a law upon its approval on 3rd reading by
Congress. The convening of the Congress cannot be suspended nor the
special election postponed. No special election shall be called if the vacancy
occurs within 18 months before the date of the next presidential election.
¥say
b. Vacancy during the term
i. Death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the
President: VP shall become the President
Estrada vs. Arroyo, G.R. No. 146738, March 2, 2001, the SC declared that
the resignation of President Estrada could not be doubted as confirmed by his
leaving Malacañan Palace. In the press release containing his final statement,
Page 1967/12/2008
1. He acknowledged the oath-taking of the respondent as President;
2. He emphasized he was leaving the Palace for the sake of peace and in
order to begin the healing process (he did not say that he was leaving due
to any kind of disability and that he was going to reassume the Presidency
as soon as the disability disappears);
3. He expressed his gratitude to the people for the opportunity to serve them
as President (without doubt referring to the past opportunity);
4. He assured that he will not shirk from any future challenge that may come
in the same service of the country;
5. He called on his supporters to join him in promotion of a constructive
national spirit of reconciliation and solidarity.
196
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Whenever there is vacancy in the Office of the VP during the term for which he
was elected, the President shall nominate a VP from among the Members of the Senate
and the HOR who shall assume office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the
Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately. (Section 9, Article VII)
Page 1977/12/2008
3. Control power (Section 17, Article VII)
Section 4, Article X—Power of general supervision over local governments
4. Calling-out power, power to place the Philippines under martial law and power to
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (Section 18, Article VII)
5. Pardoning power, reprieves, commutations, amnesty, remit fines and forfeitures
(Section 19, Article VII)
6. Borrowing power (Section 20, Article VII)
7. Diplomatic/Treaty-making power (Section 21, Article VII)
8. Budgetary power (Section 22, Article VII)
9. Informing power—State of the Nation Address (Section 23, Article VII)
10. Veto power (Article VI)
11. Power of general supervision over local governments (Section 4, Article X)
12. Power to call special session (Section 15, Article VI)
13. Unstated Residual Power—not found in the Constitution
14. Power to Reorganize the Office of the President (Administrative Code)
15. Power of Impoundment
Appointment—is the selection, by the authority vested with the power, of an individual
who is to exercise the functions of a given office.
197
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Binamira vs. Garrucho, 188 SCRA 154, when a person is merely designated
and not appointed, the implication is that he shall hold office in a temporary capacity
and may be replaced at will of the appointing authority. In this sense, a designation is
considered only an acting or temporary appointment which does not confer security of
tenure on the person named.
¥say
Appointing power is executive in nature. It is vested in the President. The power
carries with it the power to remove except in some cases like Justices of the Supreme
Court, the President appoints them but he cannot remove them. They can only be
removed through impeachment.
Page 1987/12/2008
Except: Vice-President—may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment
requires no confirmation. (Section 3, Article VII)
2. Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
3. Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain
4. Other officers whose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution
Example: JBC, Constitutional Commissions
5. All other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise
provided by law
6. Those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint.
Sarmiento vs. Mison, 156 SCRA 549, not all appointments made by the President
need CA confirmation. Only those enumerated in paragraph 1 of Section 16, Article VII
need confirmation of the Commission on Appointments. The appointment of Salvador
Mison as Commissioner of Customs needs no confirmation by the CA, because the
Commissioner of Customs is not among the officers mentioned in the 1st paragraph of
Section 16, Article VII.
Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain—refers to
military officers alone
PNP is now under the DILG (civilian in character, national in scope)—no longer part of
the AFP, therefore, no need for CA confirmation
198
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Soriano vs. Lista, G.R. No. 153881, March 24, 2003, the Philippine Coast Guard
(PCG) is no longer part of the Philippine Navy or the AFP but is not under the DOTC, a
civilian agency, the promotion and appointment of respondent officers of the PCG will
not require confirmation by the CA.
Calderon vs. Carale, 208 SCRA 254, Article 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA
6715, insofar as it requires the confirmation by the CA of the appointment of the NLRC
¥say
Chairman and commissioners, is unconstitutional because it violates Section 16 of
Article VII. The Congress, when they enacted the law, added to the exclusive list
another category of officers to be appointed by the President that need the confirmation
of the CA.
Manalo vs. Sistoza, 312 SCRA 239—a law was enacted creating the PNP, RA 6795. It
provides that the Director, Deputy Director General, and other top officials of the PNP
shall be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The SC declared it as
Page 1997/12/2008
unconstitutional.
In the above two cases, Congress cannot add/remove anything from the list of
officers to be appointed by the President that require confirmation of the CA. The list is
exclusive. The Congress cannot add or remove anything by a mere legislative act.
199
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Appointing Procedure:
1. Nomination by the President;
2. Confirmation by the Commission on Appointments;
3. Issuance of commission; and
4. Acceptance by appointee. Deemed complete upon acceptance. Pending such
acceptance, which is optional to the appointee, the appointment may still be
validly withdrawn. Appointment to a public office cannot be forced upon citizen
¥say
except for purposes of defense of the State under Section 4, Article II of the
Constitution, as an exception to the rule against involuntary servitude.
Classifications:
1. Permanent—those extended to persons possessing the requisite eligibility and
are thus protected by the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure.
2. Temporary—those given to persons without such eligibility, revocable at will and
without necessity of just cause or a valid investigation, made on the
Page 2007/12/2008
understanding that the appointing power has not yet decided on a permanent
appointee and that the temporary appointee may be replaced at any time a
permanent choice is made.
200
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
b. Midnight—made by the President before his term expires, whether or not
it is confirmed by the CA
Page 2017/12/2008
deliberating on the qualifications of the appointee. Since the Constitution does
not provide for any appeal from such decision, the disapproval is final and
binding on the appointee as well as on the appointing power. In this instance, the
President can no longer renew the appointment not because of the constitutional
prohibition on appointment, but because of a final decision by the CA to withhold
its consent to the appointment.
In the case of Matibag vs. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49, ad interim means “in
the meantime” or “for the time being”. An ad interim appointment means a
permanent appointment made by the President in the meantime that Congress is
in recess. It does not mean a temporary appointment that can be withdrawn or
revoked at any time. An ad interim appointee who has qualified and assumed
office becomes at that moment a government employee and therefore part of the
civil service. He enjoys the constitutional protection that he cannot be suspended
or removed except for causes provided by law. The withdrawal or revocation of
an ad interim appointment is possible only if it is communicated to the appointee
before the moment he qualifies, and any withdrawal or revocation thereafter is
tantamount to removal from office. Once an appointee has qualified, he acquires
a legal right to the office which is protected not only by statute but also by the
Constitution. He can only be removed for cause, after notice and hearing,
consistent with the requirements of due process.
201
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Ad Interim regular
Takes effect immediately Does not take effect immediately
¥say
session
The distinction lies in the effectivity of the appointment
Page 2027/12/2008
by-passed by Commission on Appointments may be subject to re-appointment?
The SC held that an ad interim appointment that is by-passed by the
Commission on Appointments because of lack of time or failure of the latter to
organize is another matter. A by-passed appointment is one that has not been
finally acted upon on the merits by the CA at the close of the session of
Congress. There is no final decision by the Commission on Appointments to give
or withhold its consent to the appointment as required by the Constitution. Absent
such decision, the President is free to renew the ad interim appointment of a by-
passed appointee. This is recognized in Section 17 of the Rules of the
Commission on Appointments. Hence, under the Rules, a by-passed
appointment can be considered again if the President renews the appointment.
202
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
three respondents will result in any of the evils intended to be exorcised by the
twin prohibition of the Constitution. The continuing renewal of the ad interim
appointment of these three respondents for so long as their term of office expires
on February 2, 2008 does not violate the prohibition on reappointments in
Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution.
Four (4) Situations where Section 1 (2), Article IX-C will apply:
Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of the Constitution provides: The Chairman and the
¥say
Commissioners shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the
Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment.
Of those first appointed, three Members shall hold office for seven years, two
Members for five years, and the last Member for three years, without
reappointment. Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired term
of the predecessor. In no case shall any Member be appointed or designated in
a temporary or acting capacity.
Page 2037/12/2008
1. Where an ad interim appointee to the COMELEC, after confirmation by
the CA, serves his full 7-year term. Such person cannot be reappointed to
the COMELEC, whether as a member or as a chairman, because he will then
be actually serving more than 7 years.
2. Where the appointee, after confirmation, serves a part of his term and
then resigns before his 7-year term of office ends. Such person cannot be
reappointed. Whether as a member or as a chairman, to a vacancy arising
from retirement because a reappointment will result in the appointee also
serving more than seven years.
3. Where the appointee is confirmed to serve the unexpired term of
someone who died or resigned, and the appointee completes the
unexpired term. Such person cannot be reappointed, whether as member or
chair, to a vacancy arising from retirement because a reappointment will
result in the appointee also serving more than seven years.
4. Where the appointee has previously served a term less than seven
years, and a vacancy arises from death or resignation. Even if it will not
result in his serving more than 7 years, a reappointment of such person to
serve an unexpired term is also prohibited because his situation will be similar
to those appointed under the second sentence of Section 1 (2), Article IX-C of
the Constitution. This provision refers to the 1st appointees under the
Constitution, whose terms of office are less than 7 years, but are barred from
ever being reappointed under any situation.
203
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In Pimentel, Jr. vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 164798, October 13, 2005,
Congress commenced their regular session on July 26, 2004, the Commission
on Appointments was constituted on August 25, 2004. Meanwhile, President
Arroyo issued appointments to respondents as acting secretaries of their
respective departments. Respondents took their oath and assume duties as
acting secretaries. Congress adjourned on September 22, 2004. On September
23, 2004, President Arroyo issued ad interim appointments to respondents as
¥say
secretaries of the departments to which they were previously appointed in an
acting capacity. A petition was filed to declare unconstitutional the appointments
issued by the President to the respondents as acting secretaries of their
respective departments without the consent of the Commission on Appointments
while Congress is in session. The SC held that as a rule, the writ of prohibition
will not lie to enjoin acts already done. However, an exception to the rule on
mootness, courts will decide a question otherwise moot if it is capable of
repetition yet evading review. In the present case, the mootness of the petition
Page 2047/12/2008
does not bar its resolution. The question of constitutionality of the President’s
appointment of department secretaries in an acting capacity while Congress is in
session will arise in every such appointment. The office of a department
secretary may become vacant while Congress is in session. Since a department
secretary is an alter ego of the President, the acting appointee to the office must
necessarily have the President’s confidence. Thus, by the very nature of the
office of a department secretary, the President must appoint in an acting capacity
a person of her own choice even while Congress is in session. The person may
or may not be the permanent appointee, but practical reasons may make it
expedient that the acting appointee will also be the permanent appointee. The
law expressly allows the President to make such acting appointment. Section
17, Chapter 5, Title I, Book III of EO 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) states
that: The President may temporarily designate an officer already in the
government service or any competent person to perform the functions of an
office in the executive branch. Thus, the President may even appoint in an acting
capacity a person not yet in the government service, as long as the President
deems that person competent.
204
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Appointee enjoys security of tenure The appointee does not enjoy security
of tenure
¥say
1. Prohibition against nepotism—(Section 13, par. 2, Article VII) The spouse and
relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the 4th civil degree of the President
shall not during his tenure be appointed as Members of the Constitutional
Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or as Secretaries,
Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries.
2. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective unless
revoked by the elected President within 90 days from his assumption of office.
Page 2057/12/2008
(section 14, Article VII)
4. The judiciary may annul an appointment made by the President if the appointee
is not qualified or has not been validly confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments.
5. Section 15, Article VII—2 types of appointment: Two months immediately before
the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or
Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments
to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety.
205
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Case of First Impression
De Rama vs. Court of Appeals, 353 SCRA, 94, Mayor Evelyn Abeja run for reelection
but lost. Before she vacated her office, though, she extended permanent appointments
to 14 new employees of the municipal government. The incoming mayor, upon
assuming office, recalled said appointments contending that these were “midnight
appointments” and, therefore, prohibited under Section 15, Article VII of the
Constitution. The SC held that the records reveal that when the petitioner brought the
Page 2067/12/2008
matter of recalling the appointments of the 14 private respondents before the Civil
Service Commission, the only reason he cited to justify his actions was that these were
“midnight appointments” that are forbidden by the Constitution. However, the CSC
ruled, and correctly so, that the said prohibition applies only to presidential
appointments. In truth and in fact, there is no law that prohibits local elective officials
from making appointments during the last days of his or her tenure.
Rufino vs. Endriga, G.R. Nos. 139554 and 139565, July 21, 2006, a statute cannot
circumvent the constitutional limitations on the power to appoint by filling vacancies in a
public office through election by the co-workers in that office. Such manner of filling
vacancies in a public office has no constitutional basis. And since the pertinent section
is unconstitutional, the President has the power to appoint the trustees by virtue of
Section 16, Article VII which gives the President the power to appoint officers whose
appointments are not provided for by the law.
POWER OF REMOVAL—
General Rule: This power is implied from the power to appoint.
Exceptions: Those appointed by him where the Constitution prescribes certain
methods for separation from public services.
Example: Members of the Constitutional Commissions, Justices of the SC—may
only be removed through impeachment
206
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Members of the career service of the Civil Service who are appointed by the
President may be directly disciplined provided that the same is for cause and in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
Members of the Cabinet and such officers whose continuity in office depends
upon the pleasure of the President may be replaced at any time, but legally speaking,
their separation is effected not by removal but by expiration of their term. (Aparri vs.
Court of Appeals, 127 SCRA 231)
¥say
POWER OF CONTROL—
Sec. 17, Article VII: The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed.
Page 2077/12/2008
As Chief Executive, the President holds the steering wheel that controls the
course of her government—she lays down policies in the execution of her plans and
programs, and whatever policy, she chooses, she has her subordinates to implement
them. (Chavez vs. Romulo, G.R. No. 157036, June 9, 2004)
Control—is the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate had
done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for
that of the latter.
Supervision—means overseeing, or the power or authority of an officer to see that
subordinate officers perform their duties, and if the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them,
then the former may take such action or steps as prescribed by law to make them
perform these duties.
In the case of DENR vs. DENR Region XII Employees, G.R. No. 149724,
August 19, 2003, the power of the President to reorganize the National Government
may validly be delegated to his Cabinet members exercising control over a particular
executive department. Accordingly, in this case, the DENR Secretary can validly
reorganize the DENR by ordering the transfer of the DENR Regional Offices from
207
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Cotabato City Koronadal, South Cotabato. The exercise of this authority by the DENR
Secretary, as an alter ego of the President, is presumed to be the act of the President
because the latter had not expressly repudiated the same.
However, in the case of Gloria vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119903, August
15, 2000, the SC held that even if the DECS Secretary is an alter ego of the President,
he cannot invoke the President’s immunity from suit in a case filed against him,
inasmuch as the questioned acts are not those of the President.
¥say
The power of control may be exercised by the President only over the acts not
over the actor (Angangco vs. Castillo, 9 SCRA 619)
Page 2087/12/2008
law and the Constitution. Any directive, therefore, by the President or any of his alter
egos seeking to alter the wisdom of a law-conforming judgment on local affairs of a LGU
is a patent nullity, because it violates the principle of local autonomy, as well as the
doctrine of separation of powers of the executive and the legislative departments in
governing municipal corporations. (Judge Dadole vs. COA, G.R. No. 125350,
December 3, 2002)
The President exercises general supervision, not control, over local governments. The
power is generally to see to it that the LGUs perform their powers and functions in
accordance with law.
MILITARY POWERS—
Calling-out power—lawless violence declare martial law & suspend the writ of HC
Rebellion invasion “when the public safety
208
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Gudani vs. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, August 15, 2006 (Tinga), the ability of the
President to require a military official to secure prior consent before appearing
before Congress pertains to a wholly different and independent specie of
presidential authority—the commander-in-chief powers of the President. By tradition
¥say
and jurisprudence, the commander-in-chief powers of the President are not
encumbered by the same degree of restriction as that which may attach to executive
privilege or executive control.
2. Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus—
Grounds: invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it.
Duration: not to exceed 60 days, following which it shall be lifted unless extended
by Congress
Page 2097/12/2008
Duty of the President: To report action to Congress within 48 hours, personally or
in writing
The Congress may revoke or extend, on request of the President, the effectivity
of proclamation by a majority vote of all its Members, voting jointly.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three (3) days, otherwise he
shall be released.
209
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
d. Congress may, by majority vote of all its members voting jointly, revoke
the proclamation, and the President cannot set aside the revocation;
e. By the same vote and in the same manner, upon initiative of the
President, Congress may extend the proclamation if the invasion or
rebellion continues and public safety requires it;
f. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the
¥say
extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30
days from its filing;
g. It does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the
functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the
confinement of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians
where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ.
Page 2107/12/2008
Olaguer doctrine—aka OPEN COURT DOCTRINE—civilians cannot be tried by
military courts if the civil courts are open and functioning (Olaguer vs. Military
Commission No. 34, G.R. No. L-54448, May 22, 1987)
PARDONING POWER—
Exercise by the President: Discretionary; may not be controlled by the legislature
or reversed by the courts unless there is violation of the Constitution.
Section 19, Article VII is simply the source of power of the President to grant
reprieves, commutations, and pardons and remit fines and forfeitures after conviction by
final judgment. This provision, however, cannot be interpreted as denying the power of
courts to control the enforcement of their decisions after the finality. In truth, an accused
that has been convicted by final judgment still possesses collateral rights and these
rights can be claimed in the appropriate courts. For instance, a death convict who
becomes insane after his final conviction cannot be executed while in the state of
insanity. (See Article 79 of the Revised Penal Code)
210
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Article 81 of the Revised Penal code, as amended, which provides that the
death sentence shall be carried out without prejudice to the exercise by the President of
his executive clemency powers at all times. For instance, the President cannot grant
reprieve, i.e., postpone the execution of a sentence to a day certain in the absence of a
precise date to reckon with. The exercise of such clemency power, at this time, might
even work to the prejudice of the convict and defeat the purpose of the Constitution, and
the applicable statute as when the date of execution set by the President would be
earlier than that designated by court. (Echegaray vs. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA
¥say
96)
Page 2117/12/2008
or the Chief Executive and the convicted criminal to the effect that the former will
release the latter subject to the condition that if he does not comply with the
terms of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison to serve the unexpired
portion of the sentence or an additional one.
Limitations:
a. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment;
b. Cannot be granted in violations of election laws without favorable
recommendations of the COMELEC;
c. Can be granted only after conviction by final judgment (except amnesty);
d. Cannot be granted in cases of legislative contempt or civil contempt;
e. Cannot absolve convict of civil liability;
f. Cannot restore public offices forfeited.
Amnesty Pardon
addressed to political offenses refers to infractions of laws of the state or
211
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
ordinary offenses
it requires the concurrence of Congress it does not need the concurrence of
Congress
¥say
it is a public act it is a private act of the President
it looks backward and puts the offense it looks forward and relieves the pardonee
into oblivion of the consequences of the offense
Judicial admissions
Matters of judicial notice no need of proof
Judicial presumptions
Page 2127/12/2008
In Llamas vs. Orbos, pardon is available also to one found guilty of administrative
offense.
Section 19 of Article VII did not distinguish between a criminal and administrative
offense.
Effect of grant of pardon:
Exceptions:
1. Unless the grant expressly so provides for her reinstatement and payment of
back salaries.
2. If the grant of pardon was based on the fact of the innocence of the one charged
of the crime.
BORROWING POWER—
The President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic
with the concurrence of the Monetary Board, subject to such limitations as may be
212
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
provided by law. The Monetary Board shall submit to the Congress report on loans
within 30 days from end of every quarter.
Limitations:
1. There must be prior concurrence of the Monetary Board
2. It is subject to such other limitations
¥say
DIPLOMATIC/TREATY-MAKING POWER (Section 21, Article VII)
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred
in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the Senate.
In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as
commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or
withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification. (Bayan vs. Zamora, G.R.
No. 138570, October 10, 2000)
Page 2137/12/2008
This provision lays down the general rule on treaties or international agreements
and applies to any form of treaty with a wide variety of subject matter. All treaties or
international agreements entered into by the Philippines, regardless of subject matter,
coverage, or particular designation or appellation, requires the concurrence of the
Senate to be valid and effective.
But see Section 25 of Article XVIII. Under this provision, the concurrence of the
Senate is only one of the requisites to render compliance with the constitutional
requirements and to consider the agreement binding on the Philippines.
BUDGETARY POWER—
Within 30 days from opening of every regular session, President shall submit to
Congress a budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from
existing and proposed revenue measures.
The Congress may not increase the appropriation recommended by the
President. However, its form, content, manner of preparation of the budget shall be
prescribed by Congress.
213
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
OTHER POWERS—
1. Power to call special session (Section 15, Article VI)
¥say
2. Power to deport aliens
3. Consent to deputization of government personnel by COMELEC
Page 2147/12/2008
a. It can be exercised only in times of war or national emergency;
b. There must be a law authorizing the President to exercise emergency
powers;
c. It must be for a limited period;
d. It must be subject to restrictions which Congress may provide; and
e. It must be necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy.
The law grants the President continuing authority to reorganize the Office of the
President in recognition of the recurring need of every President to reorganize his office
“to achieve simplicity, economy and efficiency”. The Office of the President is the nerve
center of the Executive Branch. To remain effective and efficient, the Office must be
capable of being shaped and reshaped by the President in the manner he deems fit to
carry out his directives and policies.
214
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Malaria Employees and Workers Association of the Philippines (MEWAP) vs.
Executive Secretary Romulo, G.R. No. 160093, July 31, 2007, the President has the
authority to carry out a reorganization of the DOH under the Constitutions and statutory
laws. This authority is adjunct of his power of control under Article VII, Sections 1 and
17. The President’s power to re0organize the executive branch is also an exercise of his
residual powers. However, the President must exercise good faith in carrying out the
reorganization of any branch or agency of the executive department.
Page 2157/12/2008
IMPOUNDMENT POWER—
Impoundment refers to the refusal of the President, for whatever reason, to
spend funds made available by Congress. It is the failure to spend or obligate budget
authority of any type.
Proponents of impoundment have invoked at least three (3) principal sources of
the authority of the President.
1. authority to impound given to him either expressly or impliedly by Congress
2. the executive power drawn from the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief
3. Faithful Execution Clause
The proponents insist that a faithful execution of the laws requires that the
President desist from implementing the law if doing so would prejudice public interest.
An example given is when through efficient and prudent management of a project,
substantial savings are made. In such a case, it is sheer folly to expect the President to
spend the entire amount budgeted in the law. (PHILCONSA vs. Enriquez, 235 SCRA
506)
215
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Article VIII
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Page 2167/12/2008
substantial has the standing to sue. Thus, a party must show a personal stake in the
outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be redressed by a favorable
decision in order to warrant an invocation of the court’s jurisdiction and justify the
exercise of judicial power on his behalf. (Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065,
April 15, 2005)
Section 2, Article VIII—The Congress shall have the power to define, prescribe, and
apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts but may not deprive the Supreme Court
of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in Section 5 hereof.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the
security of tenure of its Members.
216
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
4. The SC has administrative supervision over all inferior courts and personnel;
7. The members of the SC may not be designated to any agency, performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions;
Page 2177/12/2008
8. Salaries of judges may not be reduced; the Judiciary enjoys fiscal autonomy;
11. The SC can appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary.
A. Justices of the SC
a. Natural-born citizen;
b. At least 40 years of age;
217
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
C. RTC Judges
a. Citizen of the Philippines;
¥say
b. At least 35 years of age;
c. Has been engaged in the practice of law for at least 5 years or has held
public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as
an indispensable requisite
Page 2187/12/2008
public office in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as
an indispensable requisite.
2. For lower courts, President shall issue the appointment 90 days from submission
of the list.
B. Lower Courts—Hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 or
become incapacitated to discharge their duties.
By majority vote of members who actually took part in the deliberation on the
issues and voted thereon, SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts or order their dismissal.
No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines the
security of tenure of its Members.
218
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Retired Member of SC
Representative of private sector
Secretary de Officio—Clerk of the Supreme Court
Appointment:
The President shall appoint regular members for a 4-year term with the consent
of the Commission on Appointments
Powers and Functions:
1. Recommend appointees to the Judiciary;
Page 2197/12/2008
2. Recommend appointees to the Office of the Ombudsman and his 5 Deputies;
3. May exercise such other functions as may be assigned by the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT
Composition:
• Chief Justice and 14 Associates Justices
• May sit:
o En Banc; or
o In its discretion, in divisions of 3, 5, or 7 members
• Any vacancy shall be filled within 90 days from occurrence thereof.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
B. Appellate Jurisdiction
• Over final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
a. All cases in which constitutionality or validity of any treaty international
or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order,
instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question;
b. All cases involving the legality of any tax impost, assessment, or toll, or
any penalty imposed in relation thereto;
c. All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower courts is in issue;
¥say
d. All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua
or higher; and
e. All cases in which only a question of law is involved.
Page 2207/12/2008
interest may require. Not to exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge
concerned.
220
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
over all courts and personnel thereof.
Page 2217/12/2008
Congress, SC shall submit to the President and Congress an annual report on
the operation and activities of the Judiciary. (Section 16, Art. VIII)
221
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and
a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member
who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason
therefor. The same requirements shall observe by all lower collegiate courts. Section 13,
Article VIII
This requirement does not apply to administrative cases
Section 14, Article VIII—No decision shall be rendered by any court without
¥say
expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
It does not apply to a minute resolution dismissing a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari and
mandamus, provided a legal basis is given therein. Neither will it apply to administrative
cases.
People vs. Baring, G.R. No. 137933, January 28, 2002, the trial court’s
decision may cast doubt on the guilt of the accused, not by the lack of direct evidence
against the accused but by:
1. the trial court’s failure to fully explain the correlation of the facts;
2. the weight of the admissibility of the evidence;
Page 2227/12/2008
3. the assessments made from the evidence; and
4. The conclusion drawn therefrom, after applying the pertinent law as basis of the
decision.
Tichangco vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 150629, June 30, 2004, when the Court, after
deliberating on a petition and any subsequent pleadings, manifestations, comments or
motions, decides to deny due course to a petition, and states—in a minute resolution—
that the questions raised are factual or no reversible error in the respondent court’s
decision is shown or some other legal basis stated in the resolution, there is sufficient
compliance with the constitutional requirement.
222
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
WRIT OF AMPARO
¥say
promulgate rules and regulations for the protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights.
WRIT OF AMPARO—it is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty,
and security has been violated or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or office, or of a private individual or entity. The writ covers
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
It is a writ which may be issued by the courts based on this constitutional power
of the SC to promulgate rules for the protection and enforcement of constitutional
Page 2237/12/2008
rights. It is a remedy to enforce fundamental rights.
It would compel state agents to look for the missing person and the agents would
be held liable if they did not exert adequate effort in finding the person.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the right of all other authorized
parties to file similar petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party
on behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the rights of all others, observing the order
established by the law.
223
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines. The court, justice or judge
¥say
shall immediately order the issuance of the writ if on the face of the petition it ought to
issue. It is served on the respondent by a judicial officer or by a person deputized by the
court, justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make a return of service.
In case the writ cannot be served personally on the respondent, the rules on
substituted service shall apply.
A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its allowance, or a deputized
person who refuses to serve the same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge
Page 2247/12/2008
for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary actions.
Return of the Writ—the respondent shall file a verified written return together with the
supporting affidavits within seventy-two (72) hours.
If he fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall proceed to hear the
petition ex parte or even without the appearance of the respondent.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
measuring, surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant object or
operation thereon. The movant must show that the order is necessary to
establish the right of the aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. It
expires five (5) days after date of its issuance, unless extended for justifiable
reasons.
Page 2257/12/2008
keeping and securing their safety.
Only the first two interim reliefs are available to the respondent after he filed a verified
motion supported by affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal knowledge
of the defenses of the respondent, and after due hearing.
The Court shall render judgment within 10 days from the time the petition is
submitted for decision. If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial
evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may be
deemed proper and appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
If the court determines that it cannot proceed for a valid cause such as the failure
of petitioner or witnesses to appear due to threats on their lives, it shall not dismiss the
petition. The court shall archive it instead. The amparo court may, on its own or upon
motion by any party, order revival of the petition when ready for further proceedings.
The petition shall be dismissed with prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after
the lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the order archiving the case.
Does the filing of the petition preclude the filing of separate criminal, civil or
administrative actions?
No. However, when a criminal action has been commenced, no separate petition for
the writ shall be filed, but the reliefs under the writ shall be available by motion in the
criminal case, and the procedure under this rule shall govern the disposition of the
reliefs available under the writ of amparo.
225
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
When a criminal action is filed subsequent to the filing of a petition for the writ,
the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
When a criminal action and a separate civil action are filed subsequent to a
petition for a writ of amparo, the latter shall be consolidated with the criminal action.
After consolidation, the procedure under this Rule shall continue to apply to the
disposition of the reliefs in the petition.
¥say
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW—
It is the power of courts to test validity of executive and legislative acts if the
same are in accordance with the Constitution. It is an expression of supremacy of
Constitution.
Page 2267/12/2008
Political Questions—those questions which, under the constitution, are to be decided
by the people in their sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branches of government.
•Political questions are questions of policy. They involve the wisdom of an act or the
efficacy or the necessity of a particular measure. These are questions which are better
left for the political branches of the government to determine or resolve.
RECALL- a mode of removing a local official from his post even before his term ends
due to lack of confidence. It is a political question which can not be intruded by the
courts.
226
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Lawyer's League case was cited by respondents; that the case presented a
political question, hence not subject to judicial review
SC held that the case of Lawyer's League is inapplicable; the government of
former President Aquino was the result of a successful revolution by the sovereign
people, albeit a peaceful one. No less than the Freedom Constitution declared that the
Aquino government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino
people "in defiance of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution, as amended." It is familiar
learning that the legitimacy of a government sired by a successful revolution by people
power is beyond judicial scrutiny for that government automatically orbits out of the
Page 2277/12/2008
constitutional loop. In checkered contrast, the government of respondent Arroyo is not
revolutionary in character. The oath that she took at the EDSA Shrine is the oath under
1987 Constitution. In her oath, she categorically swore to preserve and defend the 1987
Constitution. Indeed, she has stressed that she is discharging the powers of the
presidency under the authority of the 1987 Constitution.
The case at bar pose legal and not political questions. The principal issues for
resolution require the proper interpretation of certain provisions in the 1987 Constitution,
notably Sec. 1 of Article II and Sec. 8 of Article VI, and the allocation of governmental
powers under Section 11 of Article VII. The issues likewise call for a ruling on the scope
of presidential immunity from suit. They also involve the correct calibration of the right of
petitioner against prejudicial publicity. Thus, respondent's invocation of the doctrine of
political question is but a foray in the dark.
EDSA I EDSA II
-involves the exercise of people power of -involves the exercise of people power of
revolution which overthrows the whole freedom of speech and freedom of
government assembly to petition the government for
redress of grievances which only affected
the office of the President
-extra constitutional and the legitimacy of -intra constitutional and the resignation
the new government that resulted from it of the sitting President that it caused and
cannot be the subject of judicial review the succession of the VP as President are
subject to judicial review
227
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
decisions may be necessary in emergency situations to avert great loss of human lives
and mass destruction of property. Indeed, the decision to call out the armed forces must
be done swiftly and decisively if it were to have any effect at all.
Page 2287/12/2008
CALLING-OUT POWER - full discretionary power of the President. In effect, it is
a political question not subject to judicial review UNLESS it can be shown that
there is GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION (GAD) in the exercise of such power.
-expanded power of the judicial review
-mere abuse of discretion will not do. The abuse must be
grave. To doubt is to sustain the power of the
President.
General Rule: Calling out power is not subject to judicial review and is
considered a political question.
Exception: When there has been a GAD.
#s 2 and 3- are not political questions. They are subject to judicial review as
expressly provided in Sec. 18 (3), Article VII:
xxx
The SC may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by
228
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
President for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. The proclamation is
sustained by Sec. 18, Art. VII and other relevant jurisprudence. However, PP 1017's
extraneous provisions giving the President express or implied power (1) to issue
decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to
lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to impose
standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra vires and
unconstitutional. The Court also rules that under Sec. 17, Art. XII, the president, in the
absence of legislation, cannot take over privately-owned public utility and private
business affected with public interest.
Page 2297/12/2008
ultra-vires acts and unconstitutional:
a. warrantless arrest of petitioners David and Llamas;
b. the dispersal of the rallies and warrantless arrest of the KMU and
NAFLU-KMU members;
c. imposition of standards on media or any prior restraint on the press;
d. warrantless search of the Tribune offices and the whimsical seizures of
some articles for publication and other materials
Section 23 (2), Article VI:
In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law,
authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to restrictions as it may
prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national
policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall
cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
prescribe
(4) The emergency power must be exercised to carry out a national policy
declared by Congress
Let it be emphasized that while the President alone can declare a state of
national emergency, however, without legislation, he has no power to take over
privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. The President
cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of
privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Nor can he
determine when such exceptional circumstances have ceased. Likewise, without
¥say
legislation, the President has no power to point out the types of businesses affected
with public interest that should be taken over. In short, the President has no absolute
authority to exercise all the powers of the State under Section 17, Article XII in the
absence of an emergency powers act passed by Congress.
Page 2307/12/2008
General rule: POTESTA DELEGATA NON DELEGARE POTEST- what has been
delegated cannot be re-delegated. It is based on ethical principle that delegated
powers constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through
the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.
While PAGCOR is allowed under its charter to enter into operator’s and/or
management contracts, it is not allowed to relinquish or share its franchise, much less
grant a veritable franchise to another entity such as SAGE. In Lim vs. Pacquing, 240
SCRA 649, the Court clarified that “since ADC has no franchise from Congress to
operate jai-alai, it cannot, even if it has license or permit from the City Mayor, operate
jai-alai in the City of Manila”. By the same token, SAGE has to obtain a separate
legislative franchise, and not “ride on” PAGCOR’s franchise if it were to legally operate
on-line internet gambling (Jaworski vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 144463, January 14,
2004).
P-eople power thru plebiscite and initiative- (Sec. 32, ART VI; Sec. 10, Art. X; Sec. 2,
Art. XVII; RA 6735) Under the 1987 Constitution, there are specific provisions where the
people have reserved to themselves the function of legislation.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
L-ocal government. (RA 7160) “Such legislation (by LG) is not regarded as a transfer of
general legislative power, but rather as the grant of the authority to prescribe
¥say
local regulations, according to immemorial practice, subject, of course, to the
interposition of the superior in cases of necessity” (People vs. Vera). This
recognizes the fact that local legislatures are more knowledgeable than the
national lawmaking body on matters of purely local concern, and are in better
position to enact appropriate legislative measures thereon.
Page 2317/12/2008
conditions when it leaves the legislature so that there will be nothing left for the
delegate to do when it reaches him except to enforce it.
3. Symbolic - educating the bar and bench and the people on the extent of protection
given by the constitutional guarantees
Proclamation No. 1021 was issued lifting PP 1017- it becomes moot and academic but
SC did not agree as the case is capable of repetition.
231
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Philippine courts may not render advisory opinion. There must always be an
actual case or controversy EXCEPT: Int'l Court of Justice-principal judicial organ of the
United Nations- ICJ may render advisory opinions. Its 2 main functions are: (a) to
decide contentious cases; and (b) to render advisory opinions upon request of the
General Assembly, or the Security Council, or the other organs of the UN when
authorized by the General Assembly.
A request for an advisory is not an actual case or controversy. But an action for
¥say
declaratory relief is proper for judicial determination.
The issue raised in the case must not be moot and academic, or because of
subsequent developments, have become moot and academic.
Page 2327/12/2008
Exceptions: (David vs. GMA)
a. Grave violation of the Constitution
b. The exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is
involved
c. Constitutional issue raised requires formulation of guiding and controlling
constitutional principles, precepts, doctrines or rules and the symbolic function to
educate the bar and bench and the people on the extent of protection given by the
constitutional guarantees
d. Case is capable of repetition yet evading review—it presupposes that:
i. The life of the controversy is too short to be fully litigated prior to its termination,
and
ii. That there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiff will again be subjected
to the same problem
2. The constitutional question must be raised by the proper party—A proper party
is one who has sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining an injury as a result of
the act complained of. (LOCUS STANDI)
"Legal Standing"- personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has
sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of governmental act.
A party's standing in court is a procedural technicality which may be set aside by the
232
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Court in view of the importance of the issues involved. Thus, where the issues raised by
the petitioners are of paramount public interest, the Court may, in the exercise of its
discretion, brush aside the procedural barrier. (Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA
110)
In Sanlakas vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004, Rep.
Suplico, et al., and Senator Pimentel were considered as proper parties to contest the
¥say
constitutionality of Pres. Arroyo’s proclamation of a “state of rebellion” after the
Oakwood incident.
In IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 141284, August 15, 2000, the petition seeking to nullify
the order of Pres. Estrada for the deployment of the Philippine Marines to join the PNP
in visibility patrols around Metro Manila area, was dismissed on the ground that the IBP
had no legal standing to question the presidential act.
Lim vs. Executive Secretary (2002)—Because of the paramount importance and the
constitutional significance of the issues raised in the Petition, the Court, in the exercise
Page 2337/12/2008
of its sound discretion, brushed aside the procedural barrier and took cognizance of the
petitions.
Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, the petitioners do not posses the legal
capacity to institute the action for annulment of the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA)
because they are without a “present substantial interest”, as distinguished from mere
expectancy, or future, contingent, subordinate or consequential interest.
In Domingo vs. Carague, G.R. No. 161065, April 15, 2005, the petitioners failed to
show any direct and personal interest in the COA Organizational Restructuring Plan;
there was no indication that they have sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining
some direct injury as a result of its implementation; and they admitted that they do not
seek any affirmative relief nor impute any improper or improvident act against the
respondents. Clearly, then, they do not have any legal standing to file the instant suit.
In Cutaran vs. DENR, G.R. No. 134958, January 31, 2001, the SC refused to give due
233
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
course to a petition seeking to enjoin the DENR from processing the ancestral land
claim of private respondent over a property located at Camp John Hay reservation in
Baguio, on the ground that there is no actual or imminent violation of the petitioner’s
asserted right. Court will not touch an issue involving the validity of a law unless there
has been a governmental act accomplished or performed that has a direct adverse
effect on the legal right of the person contesting its legality. Until such time, petitioners
are simply speculating that they might be evicted from the premises at a future time.
General rule: A party can question the validity of a statute only if, as applied to him, it
¥say
is unconstitutional.
Page 2347/12/2008
Overbreadth Doctrine—permits a party to challenge the validity of a statute
even though as applied to him, it is not unconstitutional, but it might be if applied to
others not before the Courts whose activities are constitutionally protected.
In Francisco, Jr. vs. Bayani Fernando, G.R. No. 166501, November 16, 2006,
a citizen can raise a constitutional question only when 1) he can show that he has
personally suffered some actual or threatened injury because of the allegedly illegal
conduct of the government; 2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action; and
3) a favorable action will likely redress the injury.
4. The decision on the constitutional question must constitute the very LIS MOTA
234
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
In Arceta vs. Judge Mangrobang, G.R. No. 152895, June 15, 2004, in a new
challenge to the constitutionality of B.P. 22, the SC did not find the constitutional
question to be the very lis mota presented in the controversy. Every law has in its favour
the presumption of constitutionality, and to justify its nullification, there must be a clear
and unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or
argumentative.
¥say
PERIOD FOR DECISION
Section 15, Article VIII—(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four (24) months from date of
submission for the SC, and, unless reduced by the SC, twelve months (12) for all lower
collegiate courts, and three (3) months for all lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing
of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the
court itself.
Page 2357/12/2008
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed
by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof
attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The
certification shall state why decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued
within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without
prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof,
shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without
further delay.
The above provision does not apply to Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to
regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the
Court of Appeals.
The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals
and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a trial
court.
Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one. (Re: Problem
of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. 00-8-05-SC, November 28,
2001)
MEMORANDUM DECISIONS—
235
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
To be valid, it cannot incorporate the findings of fact and the conclusions of law
¥say
of the lower court only by remote reference, which is to say that the challenged decision
is not easily and immediately available to the person reading the memorandum
decision. For the incorporation by reference to be allowed, it must provide for direct
access to the facts and the law being adopted, which must be contained in a statement
attached to the said decision. In other words, the memorandum decision authorized
under Section 40 of BP 129 should actually embody the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the lower court in an annex attached to and made an indispensable part of the
decision.
Page 2367/12/2008
Distinctive Features and Purpose:
1. It is rendered by an appellate court.
2. It incorporates by reference the findings of facts or the conclusions of law
contained in the decision, order, or ruling under review. This is to avoid
cumbersome reproduction of the decision of the lower court, or portions thereof,
in the decision of the higher court. The idea is to avoid having to repeat in the
body of the higher court decision the findings or conclusions of the lower court
since they are being approved or adopted anyway.
3. The purpose is to affirm the decision, although it is not impossible that the
approval of the finding of facts by the lower court may lead to a different
conclusion of law by the higher court. (Yao vs. CA, 344 SCRA 202, October 24,
2000)
Article IX
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
during continuance in office;
8. Commissions enjoy fiscal autonomy;
9. Each commission may promulgate its own procedural rules;
10. Chairmen and members are subject to certain disqualifications calculated to
strengthen their integrity; and
11. Commissions may appoint their own officials and employees in accordance with
Civil Service Law.
Page 2377/12/2008
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his tenure:
1. Hold any other office or employment;
2. Engage in the practice of any profession;
3. Engage in the active management and control of any business which in any way
may be affected by the functions of his office; and
4. Be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in other contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege granted by the government, any of its subdivision, agencies
or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries.
CHR Employees Association vs. CHR, G.R. No. 155336, November 24, 2004, the
Commission on Human Rights, unlike the three Constitutional Commissions, does not
enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Civil Service Commission vs. DBM, G.R. No. 158791, July 22, 2005, the “no report,
no release” policy may not be validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal
autonomy, without violating Sec. 5, Article IX-A of the Constitution. The “automatic
release” of approved annual appropriations to petitioner, a constitutional commission
vested with fiscal autonomy should thus be construed to mean that no condition to fund
releases to it may be imposed. However, petitioner’s claim that its budget may not be
reduced by Congress below the amount appropriated for the previous year, as in the
case of Judiciary, must be rejected. The provision in Section 3 of Article VIII, prohibiting
the reduction in the appropriation for the Judiciary below the amount appropriated for
the previous year does not appear in Section 5, Article IX-A. The plain implication of this
omission is that Congress is not prohibited from reducing the appropriations of
Constitutional Commissions below the amount appropriated for them for the previous
237
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
year.
¥say
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Composition:
• 1 Chairman;
• 2 Commissioners
Qualifications:
Page 2387/12/2008
1. Natural-born citizen;
2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment;
3. With proven capacity for public administration; and
4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately preceding
the appointment.
Term: Seven (7) years without reappointment
Scope of the Civil Service: Embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and
agencies of the Government, including government-owned and controlled corporations
with original charters [Section 2(1), Article IX-B]
Classes of Service:
Career Service—characterized by:
a. Entrance based on merit and fitness to be determined by competitive
examination or based on highly technical qualification;
b. Opportunity for advancement; and
c. Security of tenure.
238
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasure, or which is
limited to the duration of a particular project for which purpose
employment was made.
Kinds of Non-Career:
• Elective official and their personal or confidential staff;
• Department heads and other officials of Cabinet rank who hold
positions at the pleasure of the President and their personal or
confidential staff;
Page 2397/12/2008
• Chairmen and members of commissions and boards with fixed terms
of office and their personal or confidential staff;
• Contractual personnel or those whose employment in the government
is in accordance with a special contract to undertake a specific work or
job; and
• Emergency and seasonal personnel.
CSC vs. Engr. Darangina, G.R. No. 167472, January 31, 2007, where a non-eligible
holds a temporary appointment, his replacement by another non-eligible is not
prohibited. When a temporary appointee is required to relinquish his office, he is being
separated precisely because his term has expired.
239
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Tanjay Water District vs. Quinit, Jr. G.R. No. 160502, April 27, 2007, it is an
established rule that the tenure of office of those holding primarily confidential positions
ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as longs as
confidence in them endures. Their termination can be justified on the ground of loss of
confidence, in which case, their cessation from office involves no removal but the
expiration of their term of office.
¥say
Power to approve/disapprove appointments—
The authority of CSC to approve appointments—to check whether or not the
appointee possesses the appropriate civil service eligibility or the required qualification
—does not include the authority to make the appointment itself or to direct the
appointing authority to change the employment status of an employee. The CSC can
only inquire into the eligibility of the person chosen to fill a position and if it finds the
person qualified, it must so attest. If not, the appointment must be disapproved.
(Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, G.R. No. 104639, July 14, 1995)
Page 2407/12/2008
In the case of Lopez vs. CSC, 194 SCRA 269, the SC held that the CSC has no power
to revoke an appointment simply because it believes that the person protesting the
appointment or somebody is better qualified, for that will constitute an encroachment of
the discretion vested solely in the appointing authority.
COMMISSION ON ELECTION
Composition:
• One (1) Chairman
• Six (6) Commissioners
Qualifications:
1. Natural-born citizen;
2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment;
3. With proven capacity for public administration; and
4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately preceding
the appointment.
5. Majority, including the Chairman, must be members of the Philippine Bar who
have been engaged in the practice of law for at least ten (10) years.
240
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The COMELEC’s exercise of its quasi-judicial powers is subject to Section 3, Article IX-
C which expressly requires that:
¥say
1. All elections cases, including pre-proclamation controversies, shall be
decided by the COMELEC in division, and
2. The motion for reconsideration shall be decided by the COMELEC en banc.
Page 2417/12/2008
vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003)
In Vinzons-Chato vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 172131, April 2, 2007, once the
winning candidate has been proclaimed, taken his oath, and assumed office as a
Member of the House of Representatives, the COMELEC’s jurisdiction over election
contests relating to his election, returns, and qualifications ends, and the HRET’s own
jurisdiction begins.
In Quizon vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 177927, February 17, 2008, the denial of
due course or cancellation of one’s certificate of candidacy is not within the
administration powers of the Commission, but rather calls for the exercise of its quasi-
judicial functions. Hence, the Court may compel COMELEC to exercise such discretion
and resolve the matter but it may not control the manner of exercising such discretion.
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to election, returns and
qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city officials;
241
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
7. File upon verified complaint or motu proprio petitions in court for inclusions or
exclusions of voters; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of
violations of election laws;
Page 2427/12/2008
9. Submit to the President and Congress, comprehensive reports on conduct of
each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum or recall.
COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Composition:
• One (1) Chairman
• Two (2) Commissioners
Qualifications:
1. Natural-born citizen;
2. At least 35 years of age at the time of appointment;
3. CPA with at least ten (10) years auditing experience or members of the
Philippine Bar with at least ten (10) years practice of law; at no time shall all
members belong to the same position; and
4. Not a candidate for any elective position in the election immediately preceding
the appointment.
242
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
preservation and disallowance.
Jurisdiction of the Commission: No law shall be passed exempting any entity of the
Government, or any investment of public funds, from the jurisdiction of the COA. (Sec.
3, Article IX-C)
Temporary or Acting capacity appointment by the President to the COMELEC, COA,
CSC is prohibited by the Constitution.
In Brillantes vs. Yorac, 192 SCRA 358, the designation of Commissioner Yorac as
Page 2437/12/2008
Acting Commissioner of the COMELEC was a violation of Section 1, paragraph 1 of Article IX-C.
Fiscal Autonomy—
The 1987 Constitution expressly and unambiguously grants fiscal autonomy only
to Judiciary, the constitutional commissions, and the Office of Ombudsman. The
Commission on Human Rights has no fiscal autonomy. (CHR Employees’ Association vs.
CHR, G.R. No. 155336, July 21, 2006)
Article X
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
(In relation to Republic Act No. 7160—Local Government Code)
Public Corporation—one created by the state either by general or special act for
purposes of administration of local government or rendering service in the public
interest.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
6. Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR);
7. Special metropolitan political subdivisions;
Created for the sole purpose of coordination of delivery of basic services.
8. Sub-provinces (as recognized by Article XVIII)
Page 2447/12/2008
areas sharing common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage, economic and
social structures, and other relevant characteristics within the framework of the
constitution and the national sovereignty as well as the territorial integrity of the republic
of the Philippines.
Devolution—refers to the act by which the national government confers power and
authority upon the various local government units to perform specific functions and
responsibilities. [Section 17 (e, 2nd paragraph), LGC]
Section 6, Article X—A share in the national taxes collected by the national
government is another source of revenue for local units. The amount will be “as
determined by law.” This is distinct from the taxes which the local government itself
244
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
might impose.
Section 7, Article X—Another source of revenue for local governments is the share in
the proceeds from the exploitation and development of natural resources found within
the locality. This can take the form of financial benefits for the local units coming from a
share in fees, charges, and other incomes coming from development, and it can also
take the form of direct benefit for the population coming in the form, for instance, of
cheaper electric power rates of energy sourced in the locality, or priority in employment.
This can be effected either through national or local laws.
¥say
Section 8, Article X—the term of office of elective local officials, except barangay
officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be three years and no such officials
shall serve for more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office
for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his
service for the full term for which he was elected.
Section 8 cannot be more clear and explicit—the term of office of elected local
officials, shall be 3 years and no such officials shall serve for more than 3 consecutive
terms. Upon the other hand, Section 43 (d) of the Local Government Code clearly
Page 2457/12/2008
provides than no local official shall serve for more than three (3) consecutive terms in
the same position. (Atty. Rivera III vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 167591 and 170577,
May 9, 2007)
The creation or conversion of an LGU from one level to another level shall be based on
verifiable indicators:
a. Income—must be sufficient, to provide for all essential facilities and
services commensurate with the size of its population;
b. Population—based on total number of inhabitants within the territorial
jurisdiction of the LGU;
c. Land area—must be contiguous, unless it comprises two or more islands
or is separated by an LGU; properly identified by metes and bounds; and
245
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Division and Merger—LGU shall comply with the same requirements for their creation,
provided it shall not reduce the income, population and land area of LGUs concerned to
less than the minimum requirements prescribed; plebiscite be held in LGU affected; and
the assets and liabilities of creation shall be equitably distributed between the LGUs
affected and the new LGU.
Province Municipality City Highly Barangay
¥say
urbanized
As to Income
P20,000,000.00 P2,500,000.00 P100,000,000.00 P50,000,000.00 -
As to Population
250,000 25,000 150,000 200,000 2,000 (except
Metro Manila
or in HUCs,
5,000)
As to Land Area
Page 2467/12/2008
2,000 sq. kms. 50 sq. kms. 100 sq. kms. 100 sq. kms.
(not applicable (not applicable (not applicable if
if proposed if proposed proposed city to
province to be municipality to be created
created be created composed of 2
composed of 2 composed of 2 or more islands)
or more or more
islands) islands)
Classification of Cities:
1. Highly urbanized cities as determined by law;
2. Cities not raised to the highly urbanized category but whose existing charters
prohibit their voters from voting in provincial elections; and
3. Component cities—cities which still are under a province in some way. They
cannot be denied a vote in the election of provincial officials.
Those in numbers 1 and 2 do not vote in provincial elections, they are independent of
the province. Residents are not qualified to run for provincial positions.
246
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Abolition—when the income, population or land area has been irreversibly reduced to
less than the minimum standards prescribed for its creation, the LGU, thru a law or
ordinance, may be abolished.
LOCAL OFFICIALS
1. Governor
2. Vice-Governor
¥say
3. Members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
4. Members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod
5. Mayor
6. Vice-Mayor
7. Members of the Sangguniang Bayan
8. Punong Barangay
9. Members of the Sangguniang barangay
10. Sangguniang Kabataan
Page 2477/12/2008
QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Citizens of the Philippines;
2. Registered voter in the barangay, municipality, city or province, or in the case of
a member of the SG Panlalawigan, Panlungsod, or Bayan, in the district where
he intends to be elected;
3. Resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding election;
4. Able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect;
5. On election day, age must at least be:
a. 23 years—for governor, vice-governor, member of the SG panlalawigan,
mayor, vice-mayor, or member of the SG panlungsod of HUC;
b. 21 years—for mayor, vice-mayor of independent component cities (ICC),
component cities (CC), or municipalities;
c. 18 year—members of the SG panlungsod or SG Bayan, Punong
Barangay, member of the Sangguniang Pambarangay
d. 15 years but not more than 18 years—for SK
MANNER OF ELECTION:
1. For governor, vice-governor, city or municipal mayor and vice-mayor, punong
barangay—elected at large in their respective units;
2. For the SG panlalawigan, panlungsod and bayan of HUC—elected in their
respective district;
3. For SK Chairman and Members—elected by the registered voters of the
Katipunan ng mga kabataan.
247
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
subdivisions in order to broaden the base units declared autonomous. In that case,
of government and in the process to make the autonomous government is free to
local governments more responsive and chart its own destiny and shape its own
accountable, and ensure their fullest future with minimum intervention from
development as self-reliant communities central authorities. It amounts to self-
and make them more effective partners in immolation, since in that event, the
the pursuit of national development and autonomous government becomes
social progress. At the same time, it accountable not to the central authorities
relieves the central government of the but to its constituency.
Page 2487/12/2008
burden of managing local affairs and
enables it to concentrate on national
concerns. The President exercises general
supervision over them, but only to ensure
that local affairs are administered
according to law. He has no control over
their acts in the sense that he can
substitute their judgments with his own.
1. The principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means
“decentralization.” It does not make local governments sovereign within the state
or an “imperium in imperio.” Remaining to be an intra sovereign subdivision of
one sovereign nation; but not intended, however, to be an “imperium in imperio,”
the LGU is autonomous in the sense that it is given more power, authority,
responsibilities and resources. Power which used to be highly centralized in
Manila, is thereby deconcentrated, enabling especially the peripheral LGUs to
develop not only at their own pace and discretion but also with their own
resources and assets. (Alvarez vs. Guingona, Jr. 252 SCRA 695)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
The dynamic and more important aspect of local autonomy must be measured in
terms of the scope of the powers given to the local units.
Batangas CATV, Inc. vs. CA, G.R. No. 138810, September 29, 2004, an ordinance
enacted by virtue of the general welfare clause is valid, unless it contravenes the
fundamental law of the Philippines, or an act of the Legislature, or unless it is against
public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in derogation of
common right.
A local government unit cannot enact an ordinance or approve a resolution in
Page 2497/12/2008
violation of a general law. Municipal authorities, under a general grant of power, cannot
adopt ordinances which infringe the spirit of a state law or repugnant to the general
policy of the state. It is clear that in the absence of constitutional or legislative
authorization, municipalities have no power to grant franchises.
SJS vs. Atienza, Jr. G.R. No. 156052, March 7, 2007, the Sangguniang Panlungsod
shall enact such ordinances as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the
responsibilities conferred upon it by law, and such as shall be necessary and proper to
provide for the health and safety, comfort and convenience, maintain peace and order
and promote the general welfare of the community and inhabitants. There is a duty to
enforce the Ordinance as long as it has not been repealed by the Sanggunian or
annulled by the courts.
DAR vs. Saranggani Agricultural Co., January 24, 2007, while the DAR retains the
responsibility for approving or disapproving applications for land use conversion filed by
individual landowners on their landholdings, the exercise of such authority should be
confined to compliance with the requirements and limitations under existing laws and
regulations. The DAR’s power in such cases may not be exercised in such a manner as
to defeat the very purpose of the LGU concerned in reclassifying certain area to achieve
social and economic benefits in pursuit of its mandate towards the general welfare.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
The exercise of police power by the local government is valid unless it
contravenes the fundamental law of the land, or an act of the legislature, or unless it is
against public policy, or is unreasonable, oppressive, partial, discriminating, or in
derogation of a common right. (Tayaban vs. People, G.R. No. 150194, March 6, 2007)
Page 2507/12/2008
Have the powers of LTO to register motor vehicles and to issue driver’s
licenses for the operation thereof been devolved to local governments under the
Local Government Code?
No. The only powers of the Land Transportation Franchising Regulatory Board
(LTFRB) to regulate the operation of tricycles-for-hire and to grant franchises for the
operation thereof had been devolved to local governments under the Local Government
Code (RA 7160). Clearly unaffected by the LGC are the powers of the LTO under RA
4136 requiring the registration of all kinds of motor vehicles “used or operated on or
upon any public highway” in the country. (LTO vs. City of Butuan, G.R. No. 131512,
January 20, 2000)
Is the MMDA a local government unit or public corporation endowed with
legislative power? Is it a special metropolitan subdivision contemplated by
Section 11, Article X of the Constitution? May it validly exercise police power?
May it validly order the opening or closure of private subdivision streets to public
vehicular traffic?
The MMDA is not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the
MMDA is given to the Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and
regulations in the implementation of the MMDA’s function. There is no grant of authority
to enact ordinances and regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the
metropolis.
It is thus beyond doubt that the MMDA is not a local government unit or a public
corporation endowed with legislative power. It is not even a “special metropolitan
political subdivision” as contemplated in Section 11, Article X of the Constitution. The
250
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
The MMDA has no power to enact ordinances for the welfare of the community. It
is the LGUs, acting through their respective legislative councils, which possesses
legislative power and police power. In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Makati City did not pass any ordinance or resolution ordering the opening of Neptune
Street, hence, its proposed opening by petitioner MMDA is illegal. (MMDA vs. Bel-Air
Village Association, Inc. 328 SCRA 836)
Page 2517/12/2008
Public Office—the right, authority and duty created and conferred by law, by which for
a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
individual is invested with some sovereign functions of government to be exercised
by him for the benefit of the public. (Fernandez vs. Sto. Tomas, 234 SCRA 546)
Public office is a public trust—this requires that all government officials and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives.
251
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
and demands that he takes no advantage of his position for his personal benefit or to
the prejudice of the public.
Created by:
1. The Constitution—e.g. Office of the President;
2. Valid statutory amendments;
3. By authority of law.
¥say
Elements of Public Office:
1. Created by law or ordinance authorized by law;
2. Possesses sovereign functions of the government;
3. Functions defined expressly or impliedly by law;
4. Functions exercised by an officer directly under the control of law, not under a
superior officer unless they be those of an inferior or subordinate office created
or authorized by the legislature, and by it placed under the general control of a
superior office or body; and
Page 2527/12/2008
5. Must have permanency or continuity.
Characteristics:
1. Public office is a public trust;
2. Public office is not a property and is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be
subject of a contract.
Under Sec. 2, RA 3019—the term includes elective and appointive officials and
employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified, unclassified or exempt
service, receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government.
Khan, Jr. vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 125296, July 20, 2006, in the case
of officers/employees in GOCCs, they are deemed “public officers” if their corporations
are tasked to carry out governmental functions.
252
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Sec. 2 (14), Administrative Code—“officer” refers to a person whose duties not being
a clerical or manual nature, involve the exercise of discretion in the performance of the
functions of government. When used with reference to a person having authority to do a
particular act or perform a particular function in the exercise of governmental power,
“officer” includes any government employee, agent or body having authority to do the
¥say
act or exercise that function.
Page 2537/12/2008
Two (2) Senses:
1. Endowments, qualities or attributes which make an individual eligible for public
office—the individual must possess the qualifications at the time of appointment
or election and continuously for as long as the official relationship continues;
253
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
c. Age
d. Political Affiliation—as a rule, it is not a qualification.
Exceptions: in Party-List, Membership in the Electoral Tribunal, Commission
on appointment
¥say
office. (example: taking the oath of office)
Page 2547/12/2008
Examples: Sec. 17 (2) Art. XIII (Human Rights)— The Commission shall be
composed of a Chairman and four Members who must be natural-born citizens of
the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be members of the Bar. The term of
office and other qualifications and disabilities of the Members of the Commission
shall be provided by law.
Section 7 (2), Article VIII— The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications
of judges of lower courts, but no person may be appointed judge thereof unless he
is a citizen of the Philippines and a member of the Philippine Bar.
2. Statute—Congress has the plenary power to prescribe the qualification but such
must be:
a. Germane to the purpose of the office;
b. Not too specific so as to refer to only one individual.
In Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, March 25, 1999, an oath of
office is a qualifying requirement for public office. Only when the public officer has
satisfied this prerequisite can his right to enter into the position be considered plenary
and complete. Until then, he has none at all, and for as long as he has not qualified, the
holdover officer is the rightful occupant. An oath of office taken before one who has no
authority to administer is no oath at all.
However, in Mendoza vs. Laxina, G. R. No. 146875, July 14, 2003, once
proclaimed and duly sworn in office, a public officer is entitled to assume office and to
254
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
exercise the functions thereof. The pendency of an election protest is not sufficient
basis to enjoin him from assuming office or from discharging his functions.
Sec. 5 (1), Art. XVI—All members of the armed forces shall take an oath or
affirmation to uphold and defend this Constitution.
Q: A was elected/appointed to public office. He assumed office without taking the oath
of office as prescribed by the Constitution and relevant CSC rules and regulations. Are
¥say
his acts valid?
A: Yes, A’s acts are considered valid, insofar as third parties and the general public are
concerned/rely on his acts—acts of a De Facto officer.
(See the case of Office of the Ombudsman vs. CSC, G.R. No. 162215, July 30, 2007)
Page 2557/12/2008
DISQUALIFICATIONS
The legislature has the right to prescribe disqualifications in the same manner
that it can prescribe qualifications, provided that the prescribed disqualifications do not
violate the Constitution.
255
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
National Amnesty Commission vs. COA, G.R. No. 156982, September 8, 2004,
when another office is held by a public officer in an ex-officio capacity, as provided by
law and as required by the primary functions of his office, there is no violation, because
such other office does not comprise “any other position”. The ex-officio position is
¥say
actually and, in legal contemplation, part of the principal office. But the official
concerned is not entitled to receive additional compensation for his services in the said
position because his services are already paid for and covered by the compensation
attached to his principal office.
Page 2567/12/2008
other office or employment during their tenure.
2. Sec. 13, Art. VI— No Senator or Member of the HOR may hold any other office
or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including GOCCs or their subsidiaries, during his term without forfeiting
his seat. Neither, shall he be appointed to any office which may have been
created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was
elected.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Congress. Any legislator may hold he was elected, when such office was
another office or employment in the created or its emoluments were
government provided he forfeits his increased.
seat in the Congress.
3. Sec. 12, Art. VIII—The Members of the SC and of other courts established by
law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions.
4. Sec. 2, Art. IX-A—No Member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his
¥say
tenure, hold any other office or employment. The same disqualification applies to
the Ombudsman and his Deputies—Sec. 8, Art. XI.
5. Sec. 11, Art. XI—The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall not be qualified to run
for any office in the election immediately succeeding their cessation from office.
6. Sec. 1, Art. IX-B; Art. IX-C; Sec. 1, Art. IX-D; Sec. 8, art. XI—Members of the
Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman and his Deputies must not have
been candidates for any elective position in the elections immediately preceding
Page 2577/12/2008
their appointment.
7. Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX-B; Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX-C; Sec. 1 (2), Art. IX-D; Sec. 11, Art.
XI-- Members of the Constitutional Commissions, the Ombudsman and his
Deputies are appointed to a term of seven (7) years without reappointment.
8. Sec. 13, Art. VII—the spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the
fourth civil degree of the President shall not, during his tenure, be appointed as
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, or the Office of the Ombudsman, or
as Secretaries, Undersecretaries, chairmen or heads of bureaus or offices,
including GOCCs.
Public Interest Center, Inc. vs. Magdangal Elma, G.R. No. 138965, March 5, 2007,
the concurrent appointments of respondent as PCGG Chairman and Chief Presidential
Legal Counsel (CPLC) are unconstitutional. The concurrent appointment to these
offices is in violation of Section 7 (2), Article IX-B of the Constitution, since these are
incompatible offices. The duties of the CPLC include giving independent and impartial
legal advice on the actions of the heads of various executive departments and agencies
and reviewing investigations involving heads of executive departments. Since the
actions of the PCGG Chairman, a head of an executive agency, are subject to the
review of the CPLC, such appointments would be incompatible.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
1. Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for
an offense punishable by one year or more of imprisonment, within two (2) years
after serving sentence;
2. Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
3. Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the
Republic;
4. Those with dual citizenship;
5. Fugitive from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad;
¥say
6. Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to
reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right after the effectivity of this
Code;
7. The insane or feeble-minded.
Caasi vs. COMELEC, 191 SCRA 229, to be qualified to run for elective office, the law
requires that the candidate who is a green card holder must have waived his status as a
Page 2587/12/2008
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country. The waiver should be manifested
by some act or acts independent of and done prior to filing his certificate of candidacy
for elective office. The reason is that residence in the municipality where he intends to
run for elective office which is at least one (1) year at the time of the filing of his
certificate of candidacy, is one of the qualifications that a candidate must possess. The
mere filing of his COC for elective office in the country is not sufficient. The election of a
candidate who is a green card holder or who has not validly waived his status as a
green card holder is null and void.
Rodriguez vs. COMELEC, 259 SCRA 296, the term “fugitive from justice” includes not
only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but likewise those who, after
being charged in the Philippines or abroad, flee to avoid prosecution. Intent to evade on
the part of a candidate must be established by proof that there has already been a
conviction or at least, a charge has already been filed, at the time of flight. He is not a
fugitive from justice when, at the time of departure from abroad to the Philippines, there
is yet no complaint filed against him abroad. In this case, it was established that the
case was filed against Rodriguez five (5) months after he had returned to the
Philippines. What is controlling is the intent to evade the California court.
DE FACTO OFFICERS—
258
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
One who has reputation of being an officer that he assumes to be, and yet is not
an officer in point of law.
Requisites:
¥say
2. Actual physical possession of said office;
a. Reputation or acquiescence;
Page 2597/12/2008
want of authority of appointing or electing authority or irregularity in
appointment or election not known to the public; and
acts are valid insofar as 3rd his acts are valid his acts are entirely void
parties and the general
public is concern but he is
not suppose to benefit from
his acts—against public
policy.
259
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
d. If the assumption/act was done in good faith.
Legal Effects of Acts: Valid, binding and with full legal effect insofar as they affect the
public. It is intended for the protection of the public and individuals who get involved in
the official acts of persons discharging the duties of a public office. (Monroy vs. CA, 20
SCRA 620)
General Manager, PPA vs. Monsarate, G.R. No. 129616, April 17, 2002, a rightful
incumbent of a public office may recover from a de facto officer the salary received by
Page 2607/12/2008
the latter during the time of his wrongful tenure, even though he (the de facto officer)
occupied the office in good faith and under color of title.
260
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Prohibitions:
1. Engaging in partisan political party except to vote
2. Additional or double compensation
3. Prohibition against loans
4. Laborers—shall not be assigned to perform clerical duties
5. Detail or reassignment
6. Nepotism
¥say
1. Right to office
2. Right to salary
3. Right to preference in promotion
4. Right to vacation and sick leave
5. Right to maternity leave
6. Right to retirement pay
7. Others—right to reimbursement for expenses incurred in the due performance of
his duty; right to be indemnified; right to longevity pay.
Page 2617/12/2008
COMMENCEMENT OF OFFICIAL RELATIONS
A. By Appointment
B. By Election
APPOINTMENT—
The selection, by authority vested with power, of individual who is to perform
functions of a given office. (Binamira vs. Garrucho, G.R. No. July 30, 1990)
Bermudez vs. Torres, 311 SCRA 733, the right of choice is the heart of the
power to appoint. In the exercise of power to appoint, discretion is an integral thereof.
261
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Classification of appointments:
2. Permanent—extended to a person possessing the requisite qualification for the
¥say
position and thus enjoys security of tenure.
3. Temporary—acting appointment given to a non-civil service eligible; is without a
definite tenure and is dependent upon the pleasure of the appointing power;
4. Provisional—one which may be issued upon:
a. Prior authorization of the Commissioner of the Civil Service
b. To a person who has not qualified in an appropriate examination
c. But who otherwise meets the requirements for appointment to a regular position
in the competitive service
d. Whenever a vacancy occurs
e. The filing thereof is necessary in the interest of the service and
Page 2627/12/2008
f. There is no appropriate register of those who are eligible at the time of
appointment.
5. Regular—one made by the President while Congress is in session and becomes
effective after the nomination is confirmed by the Commission on Appointment
and continues until the end of the term.
6. Ad-interim—
a. Recess—one made while the Congress is not in session, before
confirmation by the Commission on Appointment; immediately effective;
and ceases to be valid if disapproved or bypassed by CA upon the next
adjournment of Congress;
b. Midnight—made by the President before his term expires, whether or not
it is confirmed by the CA
Matibag vs. Benipayo, G.R. No. 149036, April 2, 2002—(See discussion under Article VII)
General Manager, PPA vs. Monsarate, G.R. No. 129616, April 17, 2002, once an
appointment is issued and the moment the appointee assumes a position in the civil
service under a complete appointment, he acquires legal, not merely equitable, right to
the position which is protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution, and
cannot be taken away from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal,
except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Acting appointment—a temporary appointment and revocable in character.
Page 2637/12/2008
appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which insures freedom
of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings of betrayals of
personal trust and confidential matters of state. It is the fact of loss of confidence, not
the reason for it that is important and controlling. (Santos vs. Macaraig, 208 SCRA 74)
The next-in-rank rule neither grants a vested right to the holder nor imposes a
ministerial duty on the appointing authority.
The next-in-rank rule applies only if the vacancy is filled by promotion
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Elective local official—3 years and may serve only for 3 consecutive terms
----------------------
1988—Capco was a Vice-Mayor
1989—the Mayor (Borja, Sr.) died, Capco succeeded as Mayor
1992—Capco ran for Mayor and won
1995—he ran for re-election and won again
1998—Is he still qualified to run?
Page 2647/12/2008
The SC held that Mayor Capco is still qualified in 1998 local election. The right to
be elected for 3 consecutive times for the same position was not present in this case.
Mayor Capco did not fully serve his term in 1989. He became a mayor thru succession
and not election. (Borja, jr. vs. COMELEC & Mayor Capco of Pateros)
-----------------------
1992
1995 X was elected Mayor
1998
However, in December 1, 2000, before his 3rd term ends, he resigned. Is he still
qualified to run as mayor for the next election?
No, he is no longer allowed to run. Resignation is not considered as an
interruption in the continuity of his service of office for which he was elected.
----------------------
1992
1995 X was elected as Mayor
1998
On December 1, 2000, before his 3rd term ends, he was removed for misconduct.
He did not appeal the case. The administrative case attained finality. Is he qualified to
run again for mayor in the 2001 election?
264
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
No. he has been elected for 3 consecutive times for the same position. Section
40 (b) of the LGC provides for his disqualification—removed as a result of administrative
case. However, if he appealed, he is still qualified because there is no finality of
judgment yet.
----------------------
1992
1995 X was elected as Mayor
1998
¥say
On December 1, 2000, he was removed for grave misconduct. He was able to
appeal seasonably. In May 2001, he filed his certificate of candidacy for mayor. His
opponent filed a disqualification case. The COMELEC did not act immediately on the
DQ case. He won as mayor.
Held:
1. The DQ filed in COMELEC should be dismissed as there was no finality yet of
the administrative case.
2. The administrative case should also be dismissed. His re-election should be
considered as a condonation by the people of whatever administrative case filed
Page 2657/12/2008
against him.
Aguinaldo vs. Santos, 212 SCRA 768, a public official cannot be removed for
administrative conduct committed during a prior term, since his re-election to office
operates as a condonation of the officer’s previous conduct to the extent of cutting off
the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule, however, finds no application to
criminal cases pending against petitioner.
Mayor Alvin Garcia vs. Hon. Mojica, et al., G.R. No. 139043, September 10, 1999, a
re-elected local official may not be held administratively accountable for misconduct
committed during his prior term of office. The rationale for this holding is that when the
electorate put him back into office, it is presumed that it did so with full knowledge of his
life and character, including his past misconduct. If, armed with such knowledge, it still
reelects him, such re-election is considered a condonation of his past misdeeds.
1992
1995 Hagedorn was elected as Mayor
1998
In 2001, Hagedorn ran for governor but lost. Socrates was elected as mayor.
265
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Held: the three (3)-term limit rule found in Sec. 43-b, LGC has two (2) parts:
1. Three (3) consecutive terms
¥say
2. Any length of time will interrupt
The provision speaks of a regular election and not a special one. In this case, recall is
a special election. It is not considered as immediate election. The immediate election
that prohibits Hagedorn from running for mayor is the next regular election after his 3
consecutive terms has ended, the 2001 election.
Page 2667/12/2008
He won in the September 2002 recall election. He will continue the term of Socrates.
His term will end on June 30, 2004—a term which is less than 3 years.
What if in:
2004
2007 he was elected as Mayor
May he run again in 2010?
No more. Recall election term is considered as one full term for purposes
of applying the disqualification. Otherwise, Hagedorn will be allowed to serve for
more than nine (9) years.
The above hypothetical problem was only an obiter dictum in the case of Socrates vs.
COMELEC.
The rule is, service of the recall term will not interrupt the 3-consecutive term rule. In the
case of Mendoza vs. COMELEC, the SC did not abandon the ruling in Socrates
because it was merely an obiter dictum.
---------------------------
1995—Francis Ong ran for mayor, he won
1998—He ran and won again. Alegre filed a protest.
2001—Ong ran and won again. The protest in 1998 was decided by the RTC on July 4,
2001 that it was Alegre who won in 1998 election.
266
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
2004—Ong ran again. Alegre questioned. Ong alleged that his proclamation as mayor-
elect in the May 1998 election was contested and eventually nullified by the RTC of
Daet.
Issue: Whether or not Ong’s assumption of office as Mayor from July 1, 1998 to June
30, 2001 may be considered as one full term service in the context of the consecutive 3-
term limit rule?
Held: The assumption of office from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001 constitutes “service
for the full term” and should be counted as a full term served in contemplation of the 3-
¥say
term limit prescribed by the Constitution and LGC, barring local elective officials from
being elected and serving more than 3-consecutive term for the same position. x x x His
proclamation by the Municipal Board of Canvassers of San Vicente as the duly elected
mayor in the 1998 mayoralty election coupled by his assumption of office and his
continuous exercise of the functions thereof from start to finish of the term, should
legally be taken as service for a full term in contemplation of the 3-term rule.
Page 2677/12/2008
ceased discharging his duties and responsibilities as Mayor of San Vicente, Camarines
Norte for the entire period covering the 1998-2001 term.
In the case of Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, 311 SCRA 602 (1999), Lonzanida was
elected and served for 2 consecutive terms as mayor of San Antonio, Zambales prior to
the May 8, 1995 elections. He then ran again for the same position in the May 1995
elections, won and discharged his duties as Mayor. However, an election protest was
filed before RTC of Zambales. In a decision dated July 9, 1997, it was held that there
was a failure of elections and the position for mayor as vacant. Lonzanida assumed the
office and performed his duties up to March 1998 only. During the 1998 elections,
Lonzanida ran again for mayor. A petition to disqualify under the three-term limit rule
was filed and was eventually granted. The Court held that Lonzanida cannot be
considered as having been duly elected to the post in the May 1995 election, and that
he did not fully serve the 1995-1998 mayoralty term by reason of involuntary
relinquishment of office. He cannot be deemed to have served the May 1995 to 1998
term because he was ordered to vacate (and in fact vacated) his post before the
expiration of the term. There was an involuntary severance from office as a result of
legal processes. In fine, there was an effective interruption of the continuity of service.
Concept of Vacancy:
Two (2) Principles to consider:
267
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
1. One who illegally terminated, by legal fiction, is deemed not to have vacated his
position
2. One, no matter how qualified, may not filled a position which is not vacant
Rule on Automatic Succession (Section 44, LGC)
A permanent vacancy arises when an elective local official:
1. Fills a higher vacant office;
2. Refuses to assume office;
3. Fails to qualify;
4. Dies;
¥say
5. Is removed from office;
6. Voluntarily resigns;
7. Or is otherwise permanently incapacitated to discharge the functions of his office.
Ranking in the Sanggunian shall be determined on the basis of the proportion of votes
obtained by each winning candidate to the total number of registered voters in each
district in the immediately preceding local election.
Page 2687/12/2008
Vice Governor Vice Mayor
In Case of tie between or among the highest ranking sanggunian members—it shall
be resolved by the drawing of lots.
The successors shall serve only the unexpired terms of their predecessors.
Last-in-rank—the one who will replace him must come from the same political party of
the one who caused the vacancy, upon nomination of the party.
268
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
A nomination and a certificate of membership of the appointee from the highest official
of the political party concerned are conditions sine qua non. Any appointment without
such nomination and certification shall be null and void ab initio and shall be a ground
for administrative action against the official responsible therefor.
No political party, how shall the vacancy be filled? (Section 45-c, LGC)
¥say
The local chief executive shall appoint, upon recommendation of the sanggunian
concern, a qualified person to fill the vacancy.
Fariñas vs. Barba, the last-in-rank sangguniang bayan member resigned. Mayor
Barba, upon recommendation of the Sangguniang Bayan, appointed somebody.
However, Gov. Fariñas also appointed somebody, upon recommendation of the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The SC held that neither is entitled to occupy the vacancy.
It should have been Gov. Fariñas who should appoint but the sanggunian who
Page 2697/12/2008
recommended should be the Sangguniang Bayan where the vacancy took place.
Mayor— Lakas-NUCD
V-Mayor— Lakas-NUCD
1. SB Member
2. SB Member
3. SB Member came from Reforma Party
4. SB Member
5. SB Member
6. SB Member—Lakas NUCD
7. SB Member—Reforma Party
8. SB Member—Lakas NUCD
The Mayor died. Vice Mayor succeeded. The #1 SB Member became the Vice Mayor.
The #8 slot became vacant. The Governor appointed somebody from Reforma Party.
The SC held that the appointment made by the governor is valid. The last ranking shall
be filled by Reforma Party to maintain party representation in the Sanggunian as willed
by the electorate.
269
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The Vice-Governor acted as Governor. Can he (V-Governor) preside over the sessions
of Sangguniang Panlalawigan?
No. The creation of temporary vacancy in the office of the governor creates a
corresponding vacancy in the office of the vice-governor. Section 49-d, LGC, the
members present and constituting a quorum shall elect from among themselves a
temporary presiding officer.
¥say
The rule on permanent vacancy should not be applied to temporary vacancy.
Page 2707/12/2008
One is guilty of nepotism if an appointment is issued in favor of a relative within
the third civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of any of the following:
a. Appointing authority;
b. Recommending authority;
c. Chief of the bureau of office; and
d. Person exercising immediate supervision.
Exemptions:
1. Persons employed in confidential capacity;
2. Teachers;
3. Physicians;
4. Members of the AFP;
5. Member of any family who, after his appointment to any position in an office or
bureau, contracts marriage with someone in the same office or bureau, in which
event the employment or retention therein of both husband and wife may be
allowed.
In Section 79 of the Local Government Code, the prohibition is up to the 4th civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity.
270
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Laurel V vs. CSC, Governor Laurel appointed his brother as Civilian Security
Officer, hence it is exempted, no violation as it is primarily confidential in character.
However, the governor subsequently designated the same brother as Acting Provincial
Administrator. The SC ruled that appointment and designation are two different matters.
But for purposes of the law on nepotism, the two are now the same. Hence, there is
now a violation of the law on nepotism.
Debulgado vs. CSC, it was alleged that the law applies only to original appointment
and not to promotional appointment. The SC did not agree. The law applies to all kinds
¥say
of appointment. The law does not distinguish.
Page 2717/12/2008
5. Removal
6. Abandonment
7. Acceptance of an incompatible office
8. Abolition of office
9. Prescription of the right to office
10. Impeachment
11. Death
12. Failure to assume elective office within 6 months from proclamation
13. Conviction of a crime
14. Filing a certificate of candidacy
Term—the period of time during which a public officer has the right to hold the public
office
Tenure—the period of time during which the public officer actually held office
Hold-over principle—[See the case of Lecaroz vs. SB (1999)]—in the absence of any
express or implied constitutional or statutory provision to the contrary, the public officer
is entitled to hold his office until his successor shall have been duly chosen and shall
have qualified. The purpose is to prevent a hiatus in public office.
It implies that the office has a fixed term and the incumbent is holding onto the
succeeding term. Where this provision is found, the office does not become vacant
upon the expiration of the term if there is no successor elected and qualified to assume
it, but the present incumbent will carry over until his successor is elected and qualified,
even though it be beyond the term fixed by law.
271
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Indeed, the law abhors a vacuum in public offices, and courts generally indulge in
the strong presumption against a legislative intent to create, by statute, a condition
which may result in an executive or administrative office becoming, for any period of
time, wholly vacant or unoccupied by one lawfully authorized to exercise its functions.
This is founded on obvious considerations of public policy, for the principle of holdover
is specifically intended to prevent public convenience from suffering of a vacancy and to
avoid a hiatus in the performance of government functions. (Lecaroz vs.
Sandiganbayan, 305 SCRA 397, March 25, 1999)
¥say
RECALL—the termination of official relationship of an elective official for loss of
confidence prior to expiration of his term through the will of the electorate.
Page 2727/12/2008
Limitations on Recall (Section 74, LGC)
1. Any elective local official may be the subject of a recall election only once during
his term of office for loss of confidence.
2. No recall shall take place within one year from the date of the official’s
assumption to office or one year immediately preceding a regular local election.
Paras vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 123169, November 4, 1996, it was held that the
SK Election is not a regular election within the contemplation of the LGC as
would bar the holding of a recall election. Neither will the recall election of the
Mayor be barred by the Barangay Election.
Angobung vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 126571, March 5, 1997, the “regular local
election” referred to in Section 74, LGC, means that the approaching local
election must be one where the position of the official to be recalled is actually
contested and to be filled by the electorate.
To constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office, there must
be:
1. An intention to relinquish a part of the term;
2. An act of relinquishment;
272
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The last one is required by reason of Article 238 of the revised Penal Code.
(Sanggguniang Bayan of San Andres, Catanduanes vs. CA, 284 SCRA 276)
Estrada vs. Desierto, G.R. Nos. 146710-15, March 2, 2001, resignation is a factual
question and its elements are beyond quibble: there must be an intent to resign and the
intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not
governed by any formal requirement as to for. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be
¥say
express. It can be implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal
effect.
Page 2737/12/2008
concomitant effect is that the former holder of an office, can no longer legally repossess
it even by forcible re-occupancy.
In the case of UP Board of Regents vs. Rasul, the renaming and restructuring
of the PGH and its component units cannot give rise to a valid and bona fide abolition of
the position of PGH Director. This is because where the abolished office and the offices
created in its place have similar functions, the abolition lacks good faith. The abolition
which merely changes the nomenclature of positions is invalid and does not result in the
removal of the incumbent.
The above notwithstanding, and assuming that the abolition of the position of the
PGH Director and the creation of the UP-PGH Medical center Director are valid, the
removal of the incumbent is still not justified for the reason that the duties and functions
of the two positions are basically the same.
Canonizado vs. Aguirre, G.R. No. 133132, January 25, 2000, the substantial identity
in the functions between the two offices was indicia of bad faith in the removal of
petitioner pursuant to a re-organization.
REORGANIZATION—takes place when there is alteration of the existing structure of
government offices or units therein, including the lines of control, authority and
responsibility between them. It involves a reduction of personnel, consolidation of
offices, or abolition thereof by reason of economy or redundancy of functions. Naturally,
it may result in the loss of one’s position through removal or abolition of an office.
273
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
appointment, performance and merit;
4. Where there is a reclassification offices perform substantially the same functions
as the original offices; and
5. Where the removal violates the order of separation provided for by Section 2 and
of RA 6656.
GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL AND SUSPENSION—(Section 23, Rule XIV, Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of 1987 Administrative Code)
Page 2747/12/2008
1. Grave Offenses
2. Less Grave offenses
3. Light Offenses
Preventive Suspension—
It is not a penalty itself. It is merely a measure of precaution so that the employee
who is charged may be separated, for obvious reasons, from the scene of his alleged
misfeasance while the same is being investigated. It is not an action by itself but merely
an incident in an action.
Governing Laws:
1. Preventive Suspension in Administrative Cases
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Gloria vs. CA (199), there are two (2) kinds of preventive suspension under
CSC:
i. Pending investigation
ii. Pending appeal & the respondent is exonerated on appeal
¥say
Pending investigation Pending Appeal
(Respondent is not entitled (Reinstatement with full payment
to back wages) payment of back salaries)
Gov. Plaza vs. CA, G.R. No. 138464, January 18, 2008, the law provides for
preventive suspension of appointive local official and employees pending investigation
Page 2757/12/2008
of the charges against them. The suspension given to private respondents, cannot,
therefore, be considered unjustified for it is one of those sacrifices which holding a
public office requires for the public good. To be entitled to back salaries, private
respondents must not only be found innocent of the charges, but their suspension must
likewise be unjustified.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
a. Section 13, RA 3019—Suspension and loss of benefits
Authority to impose:
Page 2767/12/2008
iii. Below Salary Grade 27—RTC
In the case of Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, since the law is silent, apply
by analogy the Civil Service Law, the maximum duration would be 90 days.
Deloso vs. SB Section 13, RA 3019 does not state that the public
officer may be suspended in the office where he
committed
Bayot vs. SB the crime.
Segovia vs. SB The term “office” indicates that it applies to “any other
Santiago vs. SB office”.
276
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Article XI
¥say
Page 2777/12/2008
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section 1, Article XI
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity,
loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
277
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Public office is a public trust, and as such, the same is governed by law, and
cannot be made the subject of personal promises or negotiations by private persons.
Security of tenure of employees in the career executive service (except first and second
level employees in the civil service), pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the
position to which they may be appointed. (Collantes vs. CA, G.R. No. 169604, March
6, 2007)
¥say
Who are impeachable officers?
(The list is exclusive)
1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Members of the Constitutional Commission
4. Justices of the Supreme Court
5. Ombudsman
Justices of the Sandiganbayan cannot be removed by impeachment.
Page 2787/12/2008
Impeachment of President—the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will preside; the
Senate/HOR will prosecute
Procedure in Impeachment—
Initiation:
The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases
of impeachment.
Process:
1. Verified complaint filed by any member of the House or any citizen upon
resolution of endorsement by any member thereof;
2. Included in the order of business within ten (10) session days;
3. Referred to the proper committee within three (3) session days of its inclusion.
If the verified complaint is filed by at least 1/3 of all its members, the same shall
constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith
278
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
proceed.
4. The Committee, after hearing, and by majority vote of all its members, shall
submit its report to the House together with the corresponding resolution;
5. Placing on calendar the Committee resolution within ten (10) days from
submission;
6. Discussion on the floor of the report;
7. A vote of at least 1/3 of all the members of the House shall be necessary either
to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the
Committee or override its contrary resolution.
¥say
Trial and Decision—
1. The Senators take an oath or affirmation;
2. When the president is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall
preside but shall not vote;
3. A decision of conviction must be concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members
of the Senate.
Effect of Conviction—
Page 2797/12/2008
1. Removal from office;
2. Disqualification to hold any other office under the Republic of the Philippines;
3. Party convicted shall be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and punishment
according to law.
Limitation:
1. Not more than one impeachment case shall be initiated against the same official
within a period of one (1) year.
2. The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases
of impeachment.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 142476, March 20, 2001, the Republic of the
Philippines cannot be held liable under an “Agreement” entered into by the PCGG with
another party where the republic did not authorize the PCGG to enter into such contract.
Where the sale of an aircraft to a third party by the PCGG is void, it follows that the
“Agreement” between the PCGG and the third party is likewise a nullity, and there can
be no cause of action against the Republic.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
in this instance, BP 195, providing for a 15-year prescriptive period and thereby
modifying to the above extent the 10-year prescriptive period under RA 3019.
¥say
Legislative bodies cannot impose the administrative punishment of removal from
office because the power to remove local elective officials has been exclusively granted
to the proper courts. (Sanggguniang Barangay of Don Mariano Marcos vs.
Martinez, G.R. No. 170626, March 3, 2008)
SANDIGANBAYAN
Page 2807/12/2008
The anti-graft court shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now
and hereafter may be provided by law.
Composition:
• One (1) Presiding Justice
• Fourteen (14) Associate Justices with the rank of Justice of the Court of Appeals
Sits in five (5) Divisions of three (3) members each
Decision and Review—
Unanimous vote of all three (3) members shall be required for the
pronouncement of judgment by a division. Decision shall be reviewable by the SC on
petition for certiorari.
Jurisdiction:
Original Jurisdiction
B. Violation of RA 3019; RA 1379; and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII of the
RPC where one or more of the accused are officials occupying the following
positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim
capacity at the time of the commission of the offense:
280
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
vii. Presidents, directors, trustees, or managers of GOCC’s state
universities or educational institutions or foundations.
6. Members of Congress and officials thereof with SG27 and up;
7. Members of the Judiciary without prejudice to the Constitution;
8. Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions without
prejudice to the Constitution; and
9. All other national and local officials with SG27 or higher.
Page 2817/12/2008
committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in Subsection (a)
in relation to their office;
D. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive
Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986.
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over petitions for the issuance of the writs of
mandamus, prohibitions, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunction and other ancillary
writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. Provided, that
jurisdiction over these petitions shall be not exclusive of the Supreme Court.
THE OMBUDSMAN
Composition:
• An Ombudsman known as the Tanodbayan
• One (1) Overall Deputy;
• At least one (1) Deputy e3ach for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao;
• One (1) separate Deputy for the military establishment may likewise be
281
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
appointed
Qualifications:
1. Natural-born citizen;
2. At least 40 years of age;
3. Of recognized probity and independence;
4. Member of the Philippine Bar; and
5. Must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately
preceding election.
¥say
Term: Seven (7) years without reappointment
Page 2827/12/2008
3. Shall not be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in other contract with,
or in any franchise or privilege granted by the government, any of its
subdivision, agencies or instrumentalities, including GOCCs or their
subsidiaries.
4. Shall not be qualified to run for any office in the election immediately
succeeding their cessation from office.
The Office of the Ombudsman shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Its approved annual
appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released. (Section 14, Article XI)
Buenesada vs. Flavier, G.R. No. 106719, September 21, 1993, the power to
investigate also includes the power to impose preventive suspension. This is different
from the power to recommend suspension. The latter is suspension as a penalty;
preventive suspension is not a penalty.
282
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. CSC, G.R. No. 162215, July 30, 2007, since the
responsibility for the establishment, administration and maintenance of qualification
¥say
standards lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limited
to assisting the department or agency with respect to these qualification standards and
approving them. The CSC cannot substitute its own standards for those of the
department or agency, specially in a case like this in which an independent
constitutional body is involved.
Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 166062, September 26, 2006, the incumbent
Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution and who is
Page 2837/12/2008
supposed to retain powers and duties NOT GIVEN to the Ombudsman) is clearly
without authority to conduct preliminary investigations and to direct the filing of criminal
cases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman.
Suspension under the Ombudsman Act vis-à-vis the Local Government Code:
o In order to justify the preventive suspension of a public official under Section 24
of RA 6770, the evidence of guilt should be strong, and:
The charge against the officer or employee should involve dishonesty,
oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty;
The charges should warrant removal from the service; or
The respondent’s continued stay in the office would prejudice the case
filed against him.
o The Ombudsman can impose the 6-month preventive suspension to all public
officials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investigation.
o On the other hand, in imposing the shorter period of sixty (60) days of preventive
suspension prescribed under the LGC of 1991 on an elective local official (at any
time after the issues are joined), it would be enough that:
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA, G.R. No. 168079, July 17, 2007, the SC upheld
the constitutionality of Sections 15, 21 and 25 of RA 6770, thus affirming that the
powers of the Office of the Ombudsman are not merely recommendatory. The Court
ruled in Estarija case that under RA 6770 and the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman
has the constitutional power to directly remove from the government service an erring
public official, other than a member of Congress and the Judiciary.
¥say
Page 2847/12/2008
Article XII
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Classification of Lands of the Public Domain:
1. Agricultural;
2. Forest or timber;
3. Mineral lands; and
4. National parks.
Private Lands—
General Rule: No private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals,
Page 2857/12/2008
corporations or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.
Exceptions:
1. Foreigners who inherit through intestate succession;
2. Former natural-born citizen may be a transferee of private lands subject to
limitations provided by law;
3. Ownership in condominium units;
4. Parity right agreement, under 1935 Constitution.
Stewardship Doctrine—private property is supposed to be held by the individual only
as a trustee for the people in general, who are its real owner.
Filipino First Policy—in the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos.
(2nd paragraph, Section 10, Article XII)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
some commercial enterprise with all of them generally contributing assets and sharing
risks. Considering more of a partnership, a joint venture is governed by the laws on
contracts and on partnership. The joint venture created between National Investment
and Development Corporation (NIDC) and Kawasaki falls within the purview of an
“association” pursuant to Section 5 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution and Section
11 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution. Consequently, a joint venture that would
engage in the business of operating a public utility, such as shipyard, must observe the
proportion of 60%-40% Filipino-Foreign capitalization. (JG Summit Holdings, Inc. vs.
CA, 345 SCRA 143)
¥say
Temporary Take Over of Business Affected with Public Interest—
The State may temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately
owned public utility or business affected with public interest:
1. In times of national emergency;
2. When the public interest so requires; and
3. During the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it.
Page 2867/12/2008
The temporary take over by the government extends only to the operation of the
business and not to the ownership thereof. As such, the government is not required to
compensate the private entity-owner of the said business as there is no transfer of
ownership, whether permanent or temporary. The private entity-owner affected by the
temporary take over cannot, likewise, claim for just compensation for the use of the said
business and its properties as the temporary takeover by the government is in exercise
of its police power and not of its power of eminent domain. (Agan vs. PIATCO, G.R.
No. 155001, May 5, 2003)
Constitutional Provisions Recognizing and Protecting the Rights and Interest of the
Indigenous People:
1. Section 22, Article II—the State recognizes and promotes the rights of
indigenous peoples within the framework of national unity and development.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
4. Section 6, Article XIII—the State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under
lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead
rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their
ancestral lands.
5. Section 17, Article XIV—the State shall recognize, respect, and protect the
¥say
rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures,
traditions, and institutions. It shall consider these rights in the formulation of
national plans and policies.
6. Section 12, Article XVI—the Congress may create a consultative body to advise
the President on policies affecting indigenous cultural communities, the majority
of the members of which shall come from such communities.
Page 2877/12/2008
Cultural Communities (ICCs) or the Indigenous Peoples (IPs). The term ICCs is used in
the 1987 Constitution while that of IPs is the contemporary international language in the
International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 and the UN Draft Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The ICCs or IPs refer to a group of people or homogenous societies who have
continuously lived as an organized community on communally bounded and defined
territory. These groups of people have actually occupied, possessed and utilized their
territories under claim of ownership since time immemorial. They share common bonds
of language, customs, traditions and other distinctive cultural traits, or, they, by their
resistance to political, social and cultural inroads of colonization, non-indigenous
religions and cultures, became historically differentiated from the Filipino majority. The
ICCs/IPs also include their descendants who inhabited the country at the time of
conquest or colonization, who have been displaced from their traditional territories or
who may have resettled outside their ancestral domains.
It recognizes the existence of the indigenous cultural communities or indigenous
peoples (ICCs/IPs) as a distinct sector in Philippine society. It grants these people the
ownership and possession of their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, and defines
the extent of these lands and domains. The ownership given is the indigenous concept
of ownership under customary law which traces its origin to native title.
Within their ancestral domains and ancestral lands, the ICCs/IPs are given the
right to self-governance and empowerment, social justice and human rights; the right to
preserve and protect their culture, traditions, institutions and community intellectual
rights, and the right to develop their own sciences and technologies.
287
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
whether alienable or not, hunting grounds, burial grounds, worship areas, bodies of
water, mineral and other natural resources. They also include lands which may no
longer be exclusively occupied by ICCs/IPs but from which they traditionally had access
to for their subsistence and traditional activities, particularly the home ranges of
ICCs/IPs who are still nomadic and/or shifting cultivators. Section 3(a), IPRA
Ancestral Lands—are lands held by the ICCs/IPs under the same conditions as
ancestral domains except that these are limited to lands and that these lands are not
merely occupied and possessed but are also utilized by the ICCs/IPs under claims of
individual or traditional group ownership. These lands include but are not limited to
Page 2887/12/2008
residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms and tree lots.
Section 3(b), IPRA
The right of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral domains and ancestral lands may be
acquired in two modes:
1. Native title over both ancestral domains and lands;
2. Torrens title under the Public Land Act and the Land Registration Act with
respect to ancestral lands only.
Native Title—refers to ICCs/IPs pre-conquest rights to lands and domains held under a
claim of private ownership as far back as memory reaches. These lands are deemed
never to have been public lands and are indisputably presumed to have been held that
way since before the Spanish conquest. The rights of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
domains (which also include ancestral lands) by virtue of native title shall be recognized
and respected (Section 11, IPRA). Formal recognition, when solicited by ICCs/IPs
concerned, shall be embodied in a Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT), which
shall recognize the title of the concerned ICCs/IPs over the territories identified and
delineated.
288
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The concept of native title in the IPRA was taken from the 1909 case of Cariño
vs. Insular Government, 41 Phil 935. Cariño firmly established a concept of private
land title that existed irrespective of any royal grant from the State.
The concept of native title to natural resources, unlike native title to land, has
not been recognized in the Philippines. In the case of Reavies vs. Fianza, 40 Phil
1017, the Court merely upheld the right of the indigenous peoples to claim ownership of
minerals under the Philippine Bill of 1902.
¥say
Ownership by virtue of native title—presupposes that the land has been held by its
possessor and his predecessor-in-interest in the concept of an owner since time
immemorial. The land is not acquired from the State, that is, Spain or its successor-in-
interest, the US and the Philippines Government. There has been no transfer of title
from the State as the lands has been regarded as private in character as far back as
memory goes.
Page 2897/12/2008
conversion of the character of the property from alienable public land to private land,
which presupposes a transfer of title from the State to a private person.
Jus Regalia—private title to the land must be traced to some grant, express or implied,
from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial government and
thereafter, the Philippine Republic. The belief that the Spanish Crown is the origin of all
land titles in the Philippines has persisted because title to land must emanate from
some source for it cannot issue forth from nowhere.
It refers to royal grants, or those rights which the King has by virtue of his prerogatives.
[Isagani Cruz vs. Secretary of DENR, et al., G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000,
En banc, (Puno and Kapunan, Separate Opinions)]
Lands
289
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
acquired by Americans before
July 3, 1974 shall be valid as
But State may recover against private persons
only
Page 2907/12/2008
Article XIII
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
1. Social Justice
2. Labor
3. Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform
4. Urban Land Reform and Housing
5. Health
6. Women
7. Role and Rights of People’s Organization
8. Human Rights
Section 1
The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that
protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social,
economic, and political inequities, and remove cultural inequities by equitably
diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments.
290
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Section 2
The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
Labor
¥say
Section 3
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the
right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in
policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may
Page 2917/12/2008
be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers
and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to
foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and
growth.
291
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Page 2927/12/2008
Article XIV
EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS,
CULTURE, AND SPORTS
Section 4 (1), Article XIV of the Constitution recognizes the State’s power to regulate
educational institutions:
As may be gleaned from the above provision, such power to regulate is subject
to the requirements of reasonableness. Moreover, the Constitution allows merely the
regulation and supervision of educational institutions, not the deprivation of their rights.
(Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. CA, 348 SCRA 265)
Section 5 (2), Article XIV provides that: Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning.
Academic Freedom—
The right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and
how best to attain them—free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when
292
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It has a wide sphere of autonomy
certainly extending to the choice of students. Said constitutional provision is not to be
construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion. That would be to frustrate its
purpose and nullify its intent.
¥say
3. How it shall be taught
4. Who may be admitted to study
The right of a school to discipline its students is at once apparent in the third
freedom, i.e., “how it shall be taught.” A school certainly cannot function in an
atmosphere of anarchy.
Incidentally, the school not only has the right but the duty to develop discipline in
its students. The Constitution no less imposes such duty. Section 3 (2), Article XIV:
Page 2937/12/2008
All educational institutions shall inculcate patriotism and
nationalism, foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the
role of national heroes in the historical development of the country, teach the
rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop
moral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking,
broaden scientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational
efficiency.
293
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
through fraud, a university has the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it
has thus conferred. This freedom of a university does not terminate upon the
“graduation” of a student, for it is precisely the “graduation” of such a student that is in
question. (UP Board of Regents vs. CA and Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine,
G.R. No. 134625, August 31, 1999)
Page 2947/12/2008
discipline, there are withal minimum standards which must be met before to satisfy the
demands of procedural due process and these are:
1. The student must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them;
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them and with the
assistance of counsel, if desired;
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.
294
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Article XV
THE FAMILY
Page 2957/12/2008
Family—is the basic social institution. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the
foundation of the nation.
Article XVI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Flag—
The design of our flag may be changed only by constitutional amendment.
295
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
There can be no legal right against the authority which makes the law on which
the right depends (Republic vs. Villasor, 54 SCRA 83). However, it may be sued if it
gives consent, whether express or implied.
®Does this doctrine apply as well to foreign government? YES, because of the
sovereign equality of all the state. Immunity is enjoyed by other States, consonant with
the public international law principle of PAR IN PAREM NON HABET IMPERIUM. The
head of State, who is deemed the personification of the State, is inviolable, and thus,
enjoys immunity from suit.
¥say
®USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 Fabian Genove filed a complaint for damages
against petitioners Lamachia, Belsa, Cartalla and Orascion for his dismissal as cook in
the US Air Force Recreation Center at Camp John Hay Air Station in Baguio City. It had
been ascertained after investigation, from the testimony of Belsa, Cartalla and Orascion
that Genove had poured urine into the soup stock used in cooking the vegetables
served to the club customers. Lamachia, as club manager, suspended him and
thereafter referred the case to a board of arbitrators conformably to the collective
bargaining agreement between the center and its employees. The board unanimously
Page 2967/12/2008
found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Genove’s reaction was to file his
complaint against the individual petitioners.
SC: The rule that a State may not be sued without its consent is one of the generally
accepted principles of international law that we have adopted as part of our law. Even
without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted principles of
international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this doctrine, as accepted by
the majority of states, such principles are deemed incorporated in the law of every
civilized state as a condition and consequence of its membership in the society of
nations. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
General Law
e.g. 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 a civil action between the private parties”.
(correlate Act 3083 with CA 327 as amended by PD 1445)
¥say
which must act upon it within 60 days. Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant
to elevate the matter to SC on certiorari and, in effect, sue the State thereby.
Department of Agriculture vs. NLRC, 227 SCRA 693, DA may be sued for
money claims based on a contract entered into in its governmental capacity, because of
the express consent contained in Act 3083 provided that the claim be first brought to the
COA in accordance with CA 327, as amended.
Ministerio vs. City of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464, Suit may lie because the doctrine of
Page 2977/12/2008
State immunity cannot be used to perpetrate an injustice.
Delos Santos vs. IAC, 223 SCRA 11, public respondents’ belief that the
property is public, even if buttressed by statements of other public officials, is no reason
for the unjust taking of the petitioner’s property; after all, the TCT was in the name of the
petitioner.
USA vs. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487, where the questioned transaction dealt with the
improvements on the wharves in the naval installation at Subic Bay, SC held that the
traditional rule of immunity exempts a state from being sued in the courts of another
state without its consent or waiver. This rule is a necessary consequence of the
principle of independence and equality of states. However, the rules of International
Law are not petrified; they are constantly developing and evolving.
The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the proceedings
297
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or
economic affairs. Stated differently, a state 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 contracts relate
to the exercise of its sovereign functions. In this case, the projects are integral parts of
the naval base which is devoted to the defense of both US and Philippines, indisputably
a function of the government of the highest order; they are not utilized for nor dedicated
to commercial or business purposes.
¥say
The contract for the repair of wharves was a contract in JUS IMPERII because
the wharves were to be used in national defense, a governmental function. There is no
waiver. Only the American government can waived. Act 3083 is not applicable. The
remedy is to convince the Department of Foreign Affairs to take up the claim to the US
government (state to state).
USA vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644, a contract for restaurant services within the Camp
John Hay Air Station was held commercial in character. The case should not be
dismissed. The cafeteria caters not only Americans but also the general public. There is
Page 2987/12/2008
waiver of State Immunity from suit. This is a case of Acta Jure Gestionis.
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212, Even if, in exercising the power of
eminent domain, the State exercises a power jus imperii, as distinguished from its
proprietary right of jus gestionis, where property has been taken without just
compensation being paid, the defense of immunity from suit cannot be set up in an
action for payment by the owner.
Special Law
This form of consent must be embodied in a statute and cannot be given by a
mere counsel.
e.g. Articles 2180 and 2189 of the Civil Code
Article 2180 of the Civil Code—(paragraph 6) The State is responsible in like
manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been
caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is
provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.
Article 2189: Provinces, cities and municipalities shall be liable for damages for
the death of, or injuries suffered by, any person by reason of the defective condition of
roads, streets, bridges, public buildings, and other public works under their control and
supervision.
Teotico vs. City of Manila, a man fell in a manhole. Sec. 24, Local
Government Code:
“Local government units and their officials are not exempt from liability for death or
injury to persons or damage to property.”
298
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
IMPLIED CONSENT-
1. When the State commences the litigation. It becomes vulnerable to a
counterclaim. Intervention by the State would constitute commencement of
litigation EXCEPT: when the State intervenes not for the purpose of asking for
¥say
any affirmative relief, but only for the purpose of resisting the claim precisely
because of immunity from suit. (Lim vs. Brownell, 107 Phil 345)
2. When the State enters into a business contract. (See USA vs. Guinto & USA vs.
Ruiz)
(This is the RESTRICTIVE DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY)
Mun. of San Fernando, La Union vs. Judge Firme,195 SCRA 692, the dump truck,
owned by the municipality, was driven by its official driver. It was used for hauling gravel
Page 2997/12/2008
for the repair/construction of the municipal road. The truck collided with a jeepney. The
heirs of the jeepney driver sued the Municipality of San Fernando, La Union. The SC
held that municipal corporations are agencies of the State when they are engaged in
governmental functions. Repair of municipal road is a governmental function. Therefore,
should enjoy the immunity from suit. However, they are subject to suit even in the
performance of such functions because their respective charters provide that they can
sue and be sued.
Q. When is a suit against a public official deemed to be a suit against the State?
A. The doctrine of State Immunity from suit applies to complaints filed against public
officials for acts done in the performance of their duties within the scope of their
authority.
The rule is that the suit must be regarded as one against the state where the
satisfaction of the judgment against the public official concerned will require the state to
perform a positive act, such as appropriation of the amount necessary to pay the
damages awarded to the plaintiff.
299
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The rule does not apply where the public official is charged in his official
capacity for acts that are unlawful and injurious to the rights of others. Public officials
are not exempt, in their personal capacity, from liability arising from acts committed in
bad faith.
Neither does it apply where the public official is clearly being sued not in his
official capacity but in his personal capacity, although the acts complained of may have
been committed while he occupied a public position. (Llansang vs. CA, Feb. 23, 2000)
¥say
In this case, petitioner was sued for allegedly “personal motives” in ordering the
ejectment of the general Assembly of the Blinds, Inc. (GABI) from the Rizal Park; thus,
the case was not deemed a suit against the state.
Larkins vs. NLRC, 241 SCRA 598, private respondents were dismissed from
their employment by Lt. Col. Frankhauser acting for and in behalf of the US government
which, by right of sovereign power, operated and maintained the dormitories at the
Clark Airbase for USAF Members.
Page 3007/12/2008
Instances when a suit against a State is proper:
1. When the Republic is sued by name
3. When the suit is on its face against a government officer but the case is such that
ultimate liability will belong not to the officer but to the government.
Republic vs. Sandoval, 220 SCRA 124, this is not a suit against the state with its
consent. Even as the SC dismissed the suit against the RP, the action for the damages
against the military personnel and the policemen responsible for the 1989 Mendiola
Massacre was upheld inasmuch as the initial findings of the Davide Commission
showed that there was, at least, negligence on their part when they fired their guns.
They exceeded their authority. The military personnel and the policemen were held to
be liable in their individual capacity.
*hauling lumber for the repair of the public market—business enterprise of the
government (local government)
300
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The doctrine of State immunity from suit extends only up to rendition of the judgment.
When it comes to execution to satisfy the judgment, it will require another waiver. The
remedy is to make the necessary representation with the lawmaking authority.
¥say
corresponding disbursement of municipal funds therefor.
Amigable vs. Cuenca, 43 SCRA 360, an action for the recovery of the value of the
property taken by the government and converted into a public street without payment of
just compensation was allowed despite the failure of the property owner to file his claim
with the Auditor General. The government should have followed first its own rule (it
should have filed an expropriation case) before it entered the property. Had it done so,
the suit can be waived. The state opened itself to a possible suit against it.
SCOPE OF CONSENT
Page 3017/12/2008
Consent to be sued does not include consent to the execution of judgment
against it.
a. Such execution will require another waiver, because the power of the court
ends when the judgment is rendered.
b. But funds belonging to government corporations (whose charters provide that
they can sue and be sued) that are deposited with a bank are not exempt
from garnishment.
Exceptions: Municipality of San Miguel, Bulacan vs. Fernandez, 130
SCRA 56, funds of a municipality are public in character and may not be
garnished UNLESS there is a corresponding appropriation ordinance duly
passed by the Sangguniang Bayan.
-it does not have its own charter like -it has its own charter such as SSS, GSIS,
Bureau of Customs, BIR, DA, NBI Land Bank, DBP
-performs governmental functions: not -if its charter provides that it has the right
301
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
-if performing proprietary functions: suable -if its charter is silent, inquire into its
(Civil Aeronautics Administration vs. function based on the purpose for which it
CA, 167 SCRA 28). was created (Malong vs. PNR, 138 SCRA
¥say
63)
Page 3027/12/2008
vs. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366)
Exceptions:
1. Eminent domain;
2. Erroneous collection of taxes;
3. Where government agrees to pay interest pursuant to law.
Mass Media—
It includes:
1. Radio
2. Television
3. Printed media
302
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Page 3037/12/2008
**Lambino vs. COMELEC -changing the form of government from presidential to
parliamentary involves a revision and not amendment.
2 Stages of Amendment:
1. Proposal (Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII)-the adoption of the suggested change in the
Constitution. A proposed amendment may come from—(3 ways of proposing
amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution under Article XVII):
(a) Congress—
i. (Sec. 1, Art. XVII) Acting as Constitutional Assembly and not as a
legislative body. -One of the non-legislative powers;
ii. By a vote of 3/4 of all its members. (3/4 of the Senate, 3/4 of the House
of Representatives
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Occena vs. COMELEC 104 SCRA 1, the choice of method of proposal, i.e.,
whether made directly by Congress or through a Constitutional Convention, is within the
full discretion of the legislature.
(c) People, through the Power of Initiative (Sec.2, Art. XVII)- 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
--This is not a self-executing provision, it will require an enactment of law.
¥say
RA 6735 Initiative and Referendum Law
*3 kinds of initiative:
1. initiative on the Constitution- refers to a petition proposing amendments to the
Page 3047/12/2008
Constitution
2. initiative on statutes- refers to a petition proposing to enact a national
legislation
3. initiative on local legislation- refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional,
provincial, municipal, city, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance
[Sec.2(a),RA6735]
The COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative. It does not have the power under RA 6735. Reliance on
the COMELEC’s power under Section 2 (1), Article IX-C is misplaced, for the laws and
regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC under Section 3
of Article IX-C or a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies
the “completeness” and the “sufficient standard tests”. (Santiago vs. COMELEC, 270
SCRA 106)
2. Ratification- (Sec. 4, Art. XVII) The proposed amendment shall become part of
the Constitution when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not
earlier than 60 nor later than 90 days after the approval of the proposal by Congress or
the Constitutional Convention, or after the certification by the COMELEC of the
304
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
bodies
Page 3057/12/2008
Judicial Review of Amendments. The question is now regarded as subject to judicial
review because invariably, the issue will boil down to whether or not the constitutional
provisions had been followed. (Sanidad vs. Comelec, 78 SCRA 333; Javellana vs.
Exec. Secretary, 50 SCRA 50)
Local Initiative: not less than 2,000 registered voters in case of autonomous regions,
1,000 in case of provinces and cities, 100 in case of municipalities, and 50 in case of
barangays, may file a petition with the Regional Assembly or local legislative body,
respectively, proposing the adoption, enactment, repeal, or amendment, of any law,
ordinance or resolution. (Sec. 13, RA 6735)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Revision—
In the case of Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006,
the SC held that a people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an
amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. Certainly, the Lambino Group’s
initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino
Group’s proposed changes overhaul two articles—Article VI on the Legislature and
Article VII on the Executive—affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.
Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of government,
Page 3067/12/2008
from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
306
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Article XVIII
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
¥say
Section 7, Article XVIII
Until a law is passed, the President may fill by appointment from a list of
nominees by the respective sectors the seat reserved for sectoral representatives
in paragraph 2, Section 5 of Article VI of this Constitution.
Page 3077/12/2008
appointment of a sectoral representative falls under the 4th category—those officers
whose appointments are vested in him in the Constitution.
Section 25, Article XVIII—disallows foreign military bases, troops, or facilities in the
country, unless the following conditions are sufficiently met:
1. It must be under a treaty;
2. The treaty must be duly concurred in by the Senate and, when so required by
Congress, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national
referendum; and
3. Recognized as a treaty by the other contracting state.
The requisites under the Constitution before foreign military bases, troops, or
facilities shall be allowed in the Philippines are:
1. There must be a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate;
2. When Congress so requires, said treaty must be ratified by a majority of the
307
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
votes cast by the pe0ple in a national referendum held for the purpose; and
3. Said treaty should be recognized as a treaty also by the other contracting
State. (Section 25, Article XVIII)
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
E.O. 292
¥say
That branch of public law which fixes the organization, determines the
competence of administrative authorities who executes the law, and indicates to the
individual remedies for the violation of his right.
Kinds:
1. Statutes setting up administrative authorities.
2. Rules, regulations, or orders of such administrative authorities promulgated
pursuant to the purposes for which they were created.
Page 3087/12/2008
3. Determinations, decisions and orders of such administrative authorities made in
the settlement of controversies arising in their particular fields.
4. Body of doctrines and decisions dealing with the creation, operation and effect of
determinations and regulations of such administrative authorities.
Administrative Power
It is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as
determined by proper governmental organs. It enables the President to fix a uniform
standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. To this
end, he can issue administrative orders, rules and regulations.
Administrative Order
It is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the
administrative operation of government. It must be in harmony with the law and should
be for the sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative policy.
Administration
a. As a Function
308
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
appears from the context, the various arms through which political authority is made
effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the autonomous regions, the
provincial, city, municipal or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local government.
Kinds of government:
1. INTERNAL—legal side of public administration, e.g., matters concerning
personnel, fiscal and planning activities.
2. EXTERNAL—deals with problems of government regulations, e.g., regulation
of lawful calling of profession, industries or businesses.
Page 3097/12/2008
Government Instrumentality
It refers to any agency of the national government, not integrated within the
department framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed
with some, if not all, corporate powers, administering special funds, enjoying operational
autonomy, usually through a charter. It includes regulatory agencies, chartered
institutions and GOCCs.
Those with special charters are government corporations subject to its provisions, and
its employees are under the jurisdiction of the CSC. The PNRC was not impliedly
converted to a private corporation simply because its charter was amended to vest in it
the authority to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all duties, taxes, fees and
other charges, etc. (Camporedondo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 129049, August 6, 1999)
309
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Administrative Bodies or Agencies
Organ of government, other than a court, and other than a legislature, which
affects the rights of private parties either through adjudication or rule-making.
Page 3107/12/2008
if it conducts hearings and determines controversies to carry out its regulatory duty. On
its rule-making authority, it is administrative when it does not have discretion to
determine what the law shall be but merely prescribes details for the enforcement of the
law.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
not oppressive; it must pass the test of reasonableness
Page 3117/12/2008
2. Quasi-Judicial or Adjudicatory power; and
3. Determinative powers
Holy Spirit Homeowners Association vs. Secretary Defensor, G.R. No. 163980,
August 3, 2006, prohibition lies against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against
legislative or quasi-legislative functions. In subordinate legislation, as long as the
passage of the rule or regulation had the benefit of a hearing, the procedural due
process requirement is deemed complied with.
Quasi-Legislative Power
This is the exercise of delegated legislative power, involving no discretion as to
what the law shall be, but merely the authority to fix the details in the execution or
enforcement of a policy set out in the law itself.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
PSDSA vs. Sec. De Jesus, G.R. No. 157286, June 16, 2006, it must be
stressed that the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in implementation
of a statute is necessarily limited to what is provided for in the legislative enactment.
The implementing rules and regulations of a law cannot extend the law or expand its
coverage, as the power to amend or repeal a statute is vested in the legislature. It bears
stressing, however, that the administrative bodies are allowed under their power of
subordinate legislation to implement the broad policies laid down in a statute by “filling
in” the details. All that is required is that the regulation be germane to the objectives and
purposes of the law; that the regulation does not contradict but conforms with the
¥say
standards prescribed by law.
Under the law, it is the DOTC which is authorized to administer and enforced all
laws, rules and regulations in the field of transportation and to regulate related activities.
Since the DPWH has no authority to regulate activities related to transportation, the
Tollways Regulatory Board cannot derive its power from the DPWH to issue regulations
governing limited access facilities. (Ames Mirasol vs. DPWH, G.R. No. 158793, 2006)
Page 3127/12/2008
Necessity of Notice and Hearing
There is no constitutional requirement for a hearing in the promulgation of a
general regulation by an administrative body.
In Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, G.R. No.
111953, December 12, 1997, the SC reiterated the rule that prior hearing is not
necessary for the issuance of an ARR.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Sec. 1(1), Article VIII—The judicial power shall be vested in one SC and in such lower
courts as may be established by law. –outside of this, they refer to the administrative
agency performing quasi-judicial functions.
¥say
1. Conferment of jurisdiction—jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or law;
it cannot be implied, cannot be waived, it cannot be left to the will of the people.
Page 3137/12/2008
and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure
in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated
Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide
a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless
disapproved by the Supreme Court.
In Cariño vs. CHR, 204 SCRA 483, the power to investigate is different from the
power to adjudicate. The court has observed that it is “only the first of the enumerated
powers and functions that bears any resemblance to adjudication,” but that
resemblance can in no way be synonymous to the adjudicatory power itself.
313
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
e. The decision must be based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, or at
least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties;
f. The Board or its judges must act on its or their independent consideration
of the facts and the law of the case, and not simply accept the views of a
subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
g. The decision must be rendered in such a manner that the parties to the
controversy can know the various issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered.
Page 3147/12/2008
Montemayor vs. Araneta University Foundation (1977)—Montemayor was a
full-time professor. Charged with immoral advances, he was investigated with the
assistance of counsel, and dismissed in accordance with the Manual of policies of the
University. On appeal to the NLRC, he was ordered reinstated. The SC held that his
removal was with due process. There was no violation of due process in the labor
proceeding but it did not preclude Montemayor from suing the University for damages.
In Lumiqued vs. Exevea, G.R. No. 117565, November 18, 1997, the CAR
Regional Director was charged administratively. He was asked several times if he would
like to be assisted by counsel but he refused alleging that he can handle his case as he
was from UP. After he was found guilty, he died. The heirs now claimed that the entire
proceeding was null and void. They alleged that Lumiqued was not properly assisted by
counsel. It is the right of the accused to be assisted by counsel. The SC held that the
right of the accused that was being alleged by the heirs is a right of the accused during
custodial investigation which is part of a criminal proceeding. This is not a criminal
proceeding. Administrative due process does not necessarily require the assistance of
counsel. A party in an administrative proceeding has the option of engaging a counsel
or not. He may or may not be assisted by counsel. In this case, the Regional Director
was even asked if he would like to be assisted by counsel but he refused to. The right to
counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or the
law.
In Gonzales vs. NLRC and Ateneo de Davao University, G.R. No. 125735,
August 26, 1999, the SC held that there was a violation of administrative due process
314
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
where the teacher was dismissed by the university without having been given full
opportunity to confront the witnesses against her.
¥say
In administrative proceedings, procedural due process simply means the
opportunity to explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. “To be heard” does not mean only verbal arguments in
court; one may also be heard through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either
through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due
process (Casimiro vs. Tandog, G.R. No. 146137, June 8, 2005).
CSC vs. CA, G.R. No. 161086, November 24, 2006, in administrative
proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so
Page 3157/12/2008
charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of
due process. As long as a party was given opportunity to defend his interests in due
course, he was not denied due process.
In Guevarra vs. COMELEC, 104 Phil. 268, the power to punish contempt must
be expressly granted to the administrative body; and when so granted, may be
exercised only when the administrative body is actually performing quasi-judicial
functions.
In Simon, Jr. vs. CHR, 229 SCRA 117, the CHR is constitutionally authorized to
“adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court”. Accordingly, the CHR acted
within its authority in providing in its revised rules, its power “to cite or hold any person
in direct or indirect contempt, and to impose the appropriate penalties in accordance
with the procedure and sanctions provided for in the Rules of Court.” That power to cite
for contempt, however, should be understood to apply only to violations of its adopted
operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to carry out its investigatorial
powers. To exemplify, the power to cite for contempt could be exercised against
persons who refuse to cooperate with the said body, or who unduly withhold relevant
information, or who decline to honor summons, and the like, in pursuing its investigative
work. The “order to desist” (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) is not
315
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not
possess.
In this case, the power of contempt arose from an erroneous assumption of
jurisdiction. It is not valid. There is grave abuse of discretion to both issues.
Administrative determinations where notice and hearing are not necessary for
due process:
1. Grant of provisional authority for increased rates, or to engage in a particular line
of business
¥say
2. Summary proceedings of distraint and levy upon the property of a delinquent
taxpayer
3. Cancellation of a passport where no abuse of discretion is committed by the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs
4. Summary abatement of a nuisance per se which affects the immediate safety of
persons or property
5. Preventive suspension of a public officer or employee pending investigation of
administrative charges filed against him
Page 3167/12/2008
In PBC vs. CIR, G.R. No. 112024, January 28, 1999, Article 8 of the Civil Code
recognizes judicial decisions applying or interpreting statutes as part of the legal
system of the country. But administrative decisions do not enjoy that level of
recognition. A memorandum-circular of a bureau head could not operate to vest a
taxpayer with a shield against judicial action. For there are no vested rights to speak of
respecting a wrong construction of the law by administrative officials and such wrong
interpretation could not place the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the
same.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
In recent years, it has been applied to matters that demand the special
competence of administrative agencies even if the question involved is also judicial in
character. It applies “where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into
play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a
regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an
administrative body; in such case, the judicial process is suspended pending referral of
such issues to the administrative body for its view.”
In cases where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is clearly applicable, the court
cannot arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy, the jurisdiction over
Page 3177/12/2008
which is lodged with an administrative body of special competence. (Villaflor vs. CA,
280 SCRA 287)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
resorting to court actions. Failure to exhaust will not affect the jurisdiction of the court
but the complainant is deprived of a COA which is a ground for a motion to dismiss.
However, if no motion to dismiss is filed on this ground, there is deemed to be a waiver.
Exceptions:
1. If the issue involves a pure question of law—useless to exhaust. Only the courts
can declare with finality what are purely legal question.
In Castro vs. Secretary Gloria, G.R. No. 132174, August 20, 2001, the SC said
Page 3187/12/2008
that there is a question of law when the doubts or differences arise as to what the law is
on a certain state of facts. There is question of fact when the doubts or differences arise
as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts.
2. If the law does not provide for an administrative remedy—just go to the regular
courts. In Estuerte vs. CA, 193 SCRA 541, the SC said that in a civil action for
damages, the court’s concern is whether or not damages, personal to the
plaintiff, were caused by the acts of the defendants; it can proceed independently
of the administrative action. Accordingly, the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedy does not apply.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
patently illegal manner, because only the Secretary of DILG could act on the appeal
and the NAPOLCOM, being a collegial body, cannot be bound by the act of an
individual Commissioner.
¥say
8. When the subject matter is a private land in land case proceeding.
In Vda de Tan vs. Veterans Backpay Commission, 105 Phil. 377, petitioner,
as widow of a Chinese guerilla veteran who rendered military service during the
Page 3197/12/2008
Japanese occupation, filed an application for back pay before the Veterans Back Pay
Commissions. xxx The respondent Commission is in estoppel considering that in its
resolution: “The opinions promulgated by the Secretary of Justice are advisory in
nature, which may either be accepted or ignored by the office seeking the opinion, and
any aggrieved party has the court for recourse xxx.” thereby leading the petitioner to
conclude that only final judicial ruling in her favor would be accepted by the
Commission.
Non-exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional. It only renders the action
premature, i.e., claimed cause of action is not ripe for judicial determination and for that
reason a party has no cause of action to ventilate in court. (Carale vs. Abarintos, 269
SCRA 132)
319
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
General Rule: Findings of facts of administrative agencies accorded great weight by
the courts.
Exceptions:
1. Factual finding is not supported by evidence;
2. Findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or collusion;
3. Procedure which led to factual findings is irregular;
4. Palpable errors are committed;
Page 3207/12/2008
5. Grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest.
NHA vs. Pascual, G.R. No. 158364, November 28, 2007, the decisions and orders of
administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon
their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the
doctrine of res judicata.
320
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
“a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by
the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is
permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general
international law having the same character.
Page 3217/12/2008
2. Positivist School—agreement of sovereign states to be bound by it (express in
conventional law, implied in customary law, and presumed in general principles)
3. Eclectic or Groatian School—a compromise between the first 2 schools and
submits that international law is binding partly because it is good and right and
partly because states agreed to be bound by it.
321
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
3. The duty of States not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of
any State.
4. The duty of States to cooperate with one another.
5. The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
6. The principle of sovereign equality of States.
7. States shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them.
¥say
a. International treaties and conventions, whether general or particular, establishing
rules expressly recognized by the contesting States;
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Hague Convention
Treaty—
Elements:
1. International agreement
2. States
3. Written
Page 3227/12/2008
4. Governed by international law
322
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
d. Judicial decisions and the teachings and writings of the most highly qualified
publicists of the various nations and advisory opinions of the ICJ, as subsidiary
means for the determination of rules of law.
e. Equity—Article 38 (2) provides that the ICJ may decide cases ex a quo et bono
(by what is fair and good)
Page 3237/12/2008
custom, and general principles of law. The distinctive character of these norms is that
they are created, or they acquire binding effect, through the methods pointed out above.
—consists of the methods and procedures —are the substantive evidence of the
for the creation of norms; existence of norms;
—may refer to customary norms —may refer to judicial decisions and the
works of highly qualified publicists or
jurists, which embody norms of
international law
JUS COGENS—a (peremptory) norm which States cannot derogate or deviate from in
their agreements. It is therefore a mandatory norm and stands on a higher category
than a jus dispositivum norm which states can set aside or modify by agreement.
323
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
General Rule: Parties cannot enter into a treaty contrary to jus cogens or norms
recognized and accepted by international community; non-derogable
Examples: unlawful use of force, commission of a criminal act, trade in slaves, piracy,
genocide, human rights violations, equality of states, and self-determinations
¥say
derived from another source.
2. Lex posterior derogate priori—later rules prevail over the earlier.
3. Lex specialis derogate generali—particular rules prevail over the general.
Page 3247/12/2008
regulates relation of states and other regulates relations of individuals among
international persons themselves or with their own states
derived principally from treaties, consists mainly of statutory enactments,
international customs and general and to a lesser extent executive orders
principles of law and judicial pronouncements
resolved thru state-to-state transactions redressed thru local administrative and
judicial processes
collective responsibility because it breach of which entails individual
attaches directly to the state and not to its responsibility
nationals
324
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
If conflict is with the Constitution, the latter prevails. Sec. 5(2a), Article VIII of
the Constitution provides that the SC has the power to declare a treaty or executive
agreement unconstitutional.
If conflict is with a statute, IL should be given equal standing with, but not
superior to, national legislative enactments.
¥say
the standard by which to determine the legality of a State’s conduct. By the doctrine of
pacta sunt servanda, a state may not invoke its internal law to avoid a treaty obligation.
Page 3257/12/2008
INCORPORATION CLAUSE—Section 2, Article II of the Constitution-- 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.
Under the doctrine of incorporation, rules of international law form part of the law
of the land and no further legislative action is needed to make such rules applicable in
the domestic sphere.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
decrees that rules of international law are given equal standing with, but are not
superior to, national legislative enactments. Accordingly, the principle of lex posterior
derogate priori takes effect—a treaty may repeal a statute and a statute may repeal a
treaty. In states where the Constitution is the highest law of the land, such as the
Republic of the Philippines, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if they are in
conflict with the Constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Hon. Ralph Lantion, G.R. No.
139465, January 18, 2000)
¥say
The incorporation clause assumes the existence of international law which binds
the Philippines as a State. It thus becomes a method by which the Philippines can carry
out its obligations under international law within its territorial jurisdiction.
It creates legal rights and obligations within Philippine territory and regulates the
conduct of government official and organs as well as the relations of individual citizens
with each other and with the government. Questions of international law may be
submitted to Philippine courts for decision. The outcome of litigation, however, does not
Page 3267/12/2008
affect the binding nature of international law in the relation of the Philippines with other
States and other international persons.
326
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
8. Principle of restrictive sovereign immunity
9. Principle in diplomatic law that the receiving state has the special duty to protect
the premises of the diplomatic mission of the sending State
10. The right of a citizen to return to his country
Holy See vs. del Rosario, the Court has declared in an obiter dictum that even without
affirmation in the incorporation clause of the Constitution, “such principles of
international law are deemed as part of the law of the land as a condition and
Page 3277/12/2008
consequence of our admission in the society of nations,’ under the doctrine of
incorporation. And upon admission in the international society, the state is automatically
obligated to comply with these principles.
In the case of Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA, 231, SCRA 292, it
was held that Section 6, Article II of the Constitution was taken from the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the Alma Conference Declaration of 1978 recognizing
health as a fundamental human right. Thus, the authority of the LLDA to issue a cease
and desist order to prevent pollution of Marilao River was upheld on the basis of the
principle of necessary implication.
327
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
rights and duties and of bringing international claims. This entity is said to be an
international person or one having an international personality, on the basis of
customary or general international law. It includes:
1. State;
2. Colonies and dependencies—they are considered as part and parcel of the parent
state, through which all its external relations are transacted with other states;
3. Territories under international control or supervision—these are non-self-
governing territories which have been placed under international supervision to
Page 3287/12/2008
insure their political, economic, social and educational advancement;
Mandates—former territorial possessions of states defeated in World War I and
placed under the control of the League of Nations.
Trust territories—some of the mandates that were placed under the Trusteeship
Council of the UN
Condominium—is a territory jointly administered by two states.
4. Belligerent communities—group of rebels under an organized civil government
who have taken up arms against the legitimate government. When recognized,
considered as a separate state for purposes of conflict and entitled to all the rights
and subjected to all the obligations of a full-pledged belligerent under the laws of
war;
5. International administrative bodies—created by agreement among states may be
vested with international personality when two conditions concur:
a. Their purposes are mainly non-political;
b. They are autonomous and not subject to the control of any state.
6. The United Nations—(See discussion below);
7. The Vatican City and the Holy See—
The Holy See has all the constituent elements of Statehood. It has all the rights of a
state, including diplomatic intercourse, immunity from foreign jurisdiction, etc. The
Vatican was constituted as a territory under the Sovereignty of Holy See.
In the case of Holy See vs. del Rosario, 238 SCRA 524, the SC distinguished
Vatican City from Holy See wherein the latter is an international person with which
the Philippines had diplomatic ties since 1957.
328
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
d. The need of States to maintain international standard of justice in the
treatment of aliens;
e. The Genocide Convention which condemns the mass extermination of
national, ethnic, racial or religious groups;
f. The 1930 Hague Convention with its rules to prevent the anomalous
condition of statelessness and the 1954 Covenant Relating to the Status of
Stateless Persons, which grants stateless individuals certain basic rights;
and
g. The 1950 European Convention on Human Rights and fundamental
Page 3297/12/2008
Freedoms, which grants private associations and individuals the right to file
complaints before the European Court on Human Rights.
If an entity is not a subject of international law as such, it may still assume certain
characteristics of international personality but in a special or restricted context such as
that defined by agreement, recognition or acquiescence.
Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region vs. Hon. Olalia, Jr. G.R.
No. 153675, April 19, 2007 (See Atty. Sandoval’s 2008 handouts in International Law, page 1)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
3. The existence of legal powers exercisable on the international plane and not
solely within the national systems of one or more states.
¥say
It is a group of people living together in a fixed territory, organized for political
ends under an independent government, and capable of entering into international
relations with other states.
Page 3307/12/2008
must be sufficient in number to maintain and perpetuate themselves.
2. Defined territory—a fixed portion of the earth’s surface occupied by the inhabitants;
4. Capacity to enter into relations with other States—refers to independence, that is,
freedom from outside control in the conduct of its foreign (and internal) affairs, which
many highly qualified publicists consider as the decisive criterion of statehood.
Creation of State:
1. By revolution;
2. Unification;
3. Secession;
4. Assertion of independence;
5. Agreement; and
6. Attainment of civilization.
Extinction of States:
330
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Principle of State Continuity—as long as the elements of the State are present, the
State shall continue in existence.
¥say
Consequences:
1. Political laws are abrogated
2. Municipal laws remain in force
3. Treaties are discontinued, except those dealing with local rights and
duties, such as those establishing easements and servitudes;
4. All rights of the predecessor state are inherited, but successor state
can assume and reject liabilities at its discretion
Page 3317/12/2008
Succession of Governments:
The integrity of the State is not affected. The State continues as the same
international person except that its lawful representative is changed.
Consequences:
1. All rights of the predecessor government are inherited by the
successor;
2. Where the new government was organized by virtue of constitutional
reform duly ratified in a plebiscite, all obligations of the predecessor
are likewise assumed; however,
3. Where the new government is established through violence, the new
government may lawfully reject purely personal or political obligations
of the predecessor, but not those obligations contracted by it in the
ordinary course of official business.
Classes of States:
A. INDEPENDENT—has freedom to direct and control foreign relations without
restraint from others states. It may be:
a. Simple—single central government with power over internal and external
affairs.
b. Composite—2 or more sovereign states joined together to constitute one
international person which may be:
331
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
relations as well as a certain degree of power over their domestic
affairs and their inhabitants.
Authority over internal affairs: divided between federal authorities
and the member-states;
Authority over external affairs: handled solely by federal authorities.
Page 3327/12/2008
the request of the weaker state for the protection by a strong power, e.g.
Panama, Andorra, Monaco) or a suzerainty (which is the result of a concession
from a state to a former colony that is allowed to be independent subject to the
retention by the former sovereign of certain powers over the external affairs of
the latter, e.g. Bulgaria and Rumania, both suzerainties of Sultan of Turkey by
virtue of Treaty of Berlin of 1878)
332
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
2. Observe rights of other states;
3. Comply with treaty stipulations and other obligations arising from membership in
international organizations;
4. Maintain peace; and
5. Respect the international laws.
INTERVENTION
It is the dictatorial interference by one State in the internal affairs of another
State, or in dealings with other States, usually backed up by force or threat of force. The
Page 3337/12/2008
kind of interference must be dictatorial. A State may not interfere unless it has force.
Intervention is not allowed in International Law. However, it must be
distinguished from mere intercession, such as the tender of advice or the filing of
diplomatic protest, which is not prohibited.
Instances of Justified Intervention:
1. Intervention as an act of individual or collective self-defense;
2. Intervention by treaty stipulation or by invitation;
3. Intervention by UN authorization;
4. Intervention on humanitarian grounds (which according to authorities in
international law, has now evolved into an international custom).
State Sovereignty—is the right to exercise in a definite portion of the globe the
functions of a State to the exclusion of any other State.
333
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
3. Each State has the duty to respect the personality of other States;
4. The territorial integrity and political independence of the State are inviolable;
5. Each State has the right freely to choose and develop its political, social,
economical and cultural systems; and
6. Each State has the duty to comply fully and in good faith with its international
obligations and to live in peace with other States.
Recognition—The act by which the state acknowledges the existence of another state,
Page 3347/12/2008
a government or a belligerent community, and indicates its willingness to deal with the
entity as such under international law.
Theories on Recognition:
1. Constitutive (Minority View)—recognition is the act which constitutes the
entity to an international person. Recognition is compulsory and legal; it may
be compelled once the elements of a state are established.
2. Declarative (Majority View)—recognition merely affirms an existing fact, like
the possession by the State of the essential elements. It is discretionary and
political.
334
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Estrada Doctrine—it provides that if a state will deal with representatives of the
government in actual control of another country for the protection of its citizens in the
territory of the later state, this does not necessarily mean recognition of the said
government.
¥say
Kinds of Recognition:
1. De Facto—(of fact) extended by the recognizing state which believes that
some of the requirements for recognition are absent. The recognition is
generally provisional and limited to certain juridical relations; it does not bring
about full diplomatic intercourse and does not give title to assets of the state
held/situated abroad.
2. De Jure—(of Law) extended to a government fulfilling the requirements for
recognition. When there is no specific indication, recognition is generally de
Page 3357/12/2008
jure. The recognition is relatively permanent; bring about full diplomatic
intercourse and observance of diplomatic immunities; and confers title to
assets abroad.
Effects of Recognition:
1. Diplomatic relations;
2. Right to sue in the courts of recognizing state;
In the case of Banco Nacional de Cuba vs. Sabattino, 376 US 398, unfriendly
relations or the lack of reciprocity was held immaterial.
3. Immunity from jurisdiction;
4. Entitlement to property within the recognizing state; and
5. Retroactive validation of the acts of the recognized sate/government.
335
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
only for the purpose of hostilities.
Page 3367/12/2008
2. As power—it is exercised over:
a. Persons
b. Property
c. Events
336
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
e. Is the subject of an exercise of jurisdiction necessary to ensure the observance
of an obligation of such state under a multilateral agreement
Page 3377/12/2008
Jurisdiction over Adjacent Maritime Seas
i. Continental shelf
North Sea Continental shelf Cases—what confers title ipso jure to
continental shelf is the fact that the submarine areas concerned may be
deemed to be actually part of the territory of the coastal state in the sense
that, although covered with water, they are a prolongation or continuation of
that territory.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
responsibility for national activities in outer space; absolute liability for damage
caused by space objects.
Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free
for exploration and use by all states without discrimination of any kind, on the
basis of equality and in accordance with international law.
Page 3387/12/2008
Modes of Acquiring Territory—
(See page 7 of this review notes)
Generally, a state has no jurisdiction over its nationals residing abroad except in
nationality law theory, i.e., Article 15 of the Civil Code; Article 2 of the Revised Penal
Code; taxation of citizens abroad.
338
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
COMELEC, June 23, 1989)
Page 3397/12/2008
He is to be treated more or less like the subjects of a foreign state.
Any wrong suffered by a stateless person through the act or omission of a state
would be damnum absque injuria for in theory, no state has been offended and no
international delict committed.
339
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The Philippines is not liable for death or injury to alien hostages of the abu
sayyaf, unless it is shown to have participated directly or was remiss or negligent in
taking measures to prevent injury, investigating the case, punishing the guilty, or to
enable the victim or his heirs to pursue civil remedies.
¥say
quelling a rebellion is a valid exercise of defense. State liability will attach only if it fails
to observe the minimum international standard for the protection of aliens.
Page 3407/12/2008
No state is under obligation to admit aliens
State imposes conditions on the admission of aliens
State can expel aliens from its territory—deportation/reconduction
Alien must accept the institutions of the State as he finds them
Aliens may be deprived of certain rights
Local law may grant aliens certain rights, privileges based on—
a. Reciprocity
b. Most-favored-nation treatment
c. National treatment
Privileges conferred may be revoked
340
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The right of asylum is not a right possessed by an alien to demand that a State
protect him and grant him asylum. At present, it is just a privilege granted by a State to
allow an alien escaping from the persecution of his country for political reasons.
¥say
Who is a Refugee?
A refugee is a person who is outside the country of his nationality, or if he has no
nationality, the country of his former habitual residence, because he has or had well-
founded fear of persecution by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion
and is unable or, because of such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of
the government of the country of his nationality, or, if he has no nationality, to return to
the country of his former habitual residence.
Page 3417/12/2008
To be considered a refugee, the person:
1. Is outside the country of his nationality, or, in the case of stateless persons,
outside the country of habitual residence;
2. Lacks national protection; and
3. Fears persecution by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political
opinion.
Only a person who is granted asylum by another State can apply for refugee
status; thus, the refugee treaties imply the principle of asylum.
341
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
to the “most favored” among other countries. The clause has been commonly included
in treaties of commercial nature.
Purpose: To grant to the contracting party treatment not less favorable than that
which has been or may be granted to the “most favored” among other countries. The
most favored nation clause is intended to establish the principle of equality of
international treatment by providing that the citizens or subjects of the contracting
nations may enjoy the privileges accorded by either party to those of the most favored
¥say
nation. (CIR vs. S. C. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 309 SCRA 87, June 25, 1999)
1. Conditional
2. Unconditional
Page 3427/12/2008
According to the clause in its unconditional form, any advantage of whatever kind
which has been or may in future be granted by either of the contracting parties to a third
State shall simultaneously and unconditionally be extended to the other under the same
or equivalent conditions as those under which it has been granted to the third State.
UNITED NATIONS
The international organization which succeeded the League of Nations
Organs of UN
1. General assembly—“Assembly”
2. Security Council
3. Economic & Social Council (ECOSOC) “Council”
4. Trusteeship Council
5. Secretariat
6. ICJ “organs”
342
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Legal disputes which the ICJ may resolve under the “optional clause” of its
Statute:
1. The Interpretation of a treaty;
2. Any question of international law;
3. The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an
international obligation;
4. The nature and extent of the reparations to be made in case of breach of an
international obligation.
¥say
International Criminal Court (ICC) International Court of Justice (ICJ)
it is a criminal tribunal it is a civil tribunal
has criminal jurisdiction to prosecute does not have criminal jurisdiction over
individuals individuals
Page 3437/12/2008
the crimes of aggression
The Rome Statute established the ICC which “shall have the power to exercise
its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern x x x
and shall be complementary to the national criminal jurisdictions.” (Article I, Rome
Statute) Its jurisdiction covers the following crimes:
1. Genocide;
2. Crimes against humanity;
3. War crimes; and
4. Crime of aggression. (Article 5, Rome Statute)
General Principles:
1. Nullum crimen sine lege (Ex post Facto law)
2. Nullum poena sine lege (void for vagueness)
3. Double Jeopardy
4. Non-retroactivity
343
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
No trial in absentia
No reservations
¥say
Penalties: Imprisonment—max of 30 years; no death penalty
Principle of Complementarity—the ICC shall be complementary to national criminal
jurisdictions of states. It gives primacy over the duty of every State to exercise its
criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes.
The Statute was opened for signature by all States in Rome on July 17, 1988 and
had remained open for signature until December 31, 2000 at the UN Headquarters in
New York. The Philippines signed the Statute on December 28, 2000 through Charge d’
Page 3447/12/2008
Affairs Enrique A. Manalo of the Philippine Mission to the UN. Its provisions, however,
require that it be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval of the signatory states.
(Article 25, Rome Statute)
Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622, July 6, 2005—
Ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court—the SC held that
the power to ratify does not belong to the Senate. In the book of Justice Isagani Cruz,
the usual steps in the treaty-making process are:
1. Negotiation—may be undertaken directly by the head of state but usually
assigns this task to his authorized representatives. The negotiations may be
brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved, and may even collapse
in case the parties are unable to come to an agreement on the points under
consideration.
2. Signature—if and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the
treaty, the same is opened for signature. This step is primarily intended as a
means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of symbolizing the
good faith of the parties; but significantly, it does not indicate the final consent
of the state in cases where ratification of the treaty is required. The document
is signed usually in accordance with the alternat, i.e., each of the several
negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his
home state.
344
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
3. Ratification—is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the
provisions of a treaty concluded by its representatives. The purpose of
ratification is to enable the contracting states to examine the treaty more
closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should
they find it inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties are
made subject to the scrutiny and consent of a department of the government
other than what which negotiated them.
¥say
4. Exchange of the instruments of ratification—this is the last step which
usually signifies the effectivity of the treaty unless a different date has been
agreed upon by the parties. When ratification is dispensed with and no
effectivity clause is embodied in the treaty, the instrument is deemed effective
upon its signature.
It should be emphasized that under our Constitution, the power to ratify is vested
in the President, subject to the concurrence of the Senate. The role of the Senate,
however, is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the
Page 3457/12/2008
ratification. Hence, it is within the authority of the President to refuse to submit a treaty
to the Senate or, having secured its consent for ratification, refuse to ratify it. Although
the refusal of a state to ratify a treaty which has been signed in its behalf is a serious
step that should not be taken lightly, such decision is within the competence of the
President alone, which cannot be encroached by this Court via a writ of mandamus.
This Court has no jurisdiction over actions seeking to enjoin the President in the
performance of his official duties. The Court, therefore, cannot issue the writ of
mandamus prayed for by the petitioners as it is beyond its jurisdiction to compel the
executive branch of the government to transmit the signed text of the Rome Statute to
the Senate.
GENOCIDE
It is the deliberate destruction and annihilation of a racial, ethnic or religious
group.
(See Atty. Sandoval’s 2008 handouts in International Law, page 1-2)
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Martens Clause—provides that “in cases not covered by this protocol or by any other
international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and
authority of the principles of international law derived from established customs, from
the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience” (Article I,
paragraph 2, Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949).
¥say
Hors de combat—
1. The person is in the power of an adverse party to the conflict
2. He clearly expresses his intention to surrender
3. He is incapable of defending himself provided he abstains from any hostile act
and does not attempt to escape
JURISDICTION
Page 3467/12/2008
It is the competence of a state under international law to prescribe and enforce
norms of law, as well as adjudicate over persons, property, events and relations within
its territory.
Components of Territory:
1. Terrestrial domain (Land)
2. Fluvial and Maritime domain
3. Aerial domain
AIR TERRITORY (Aerial Domain)—this refer to the airspace above the land and waters
of the State.
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
If a crime is committed on board a foreign aircraft at the atmosphere of a
country, the law of that country does not govern unless the crime affects the
national security.
Page 3477/12/2008
committed in an aircraft within the atmosphere over a subjacent state that
exercises control, then its law will govern.
347
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Leading principles:
1. TERRITORIALITY—the Philippines possesses absolute (but may not be
exclusive) jurisdiction over persons, property, relations, and events by reason of
the fact that they are within or they take place in its territory, without regard to the
nationality of the person responsible. (Article 14 of the Civil Code—Penal laws
and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law
and to treaty stipulations.)
¥say
A State may exercise jurisdiction only within its territory.
General rule: A state has criminal jurisdiction only over offenses
committed within its territory.
Page 3487/12/2008
d. Offenses covered by special agreement
348
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
A State has jurisdiction over crimes against its own nationals even if committed
outside the territory.
¥say
Organizations, and its Officers
5. Foreign merchant vessels exercising the right of innocent passage or arrival
under stress
6. Foreign armies passing through or stationed in the territory with the permission of
the State
7. Warships and other public vessels of another State operated for non-commercial
purposes
Page 3497/12/2008
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
b. Limited sense—it refers to the acts taken by the State concerning as affecting
aliens, like the inherent right of every sovereign state to exclude resident
aliens from the territory when their continued presence is no longer desirable
from the standpoint of its domestic interest and tranquility.
349
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
(legislative, executive or judicial) by another state, unless it has given its consent,
waived its immunity, or voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court
concerned.
¥say
Remedy of Individual:
a. Sue in home state of diplomat
b. Waiver by state of nationality of diplomat
c. Declare diplomat persona non grata
Diplomatic immunity ceases to be enjoyed at the moment the diplomat leaves the
country, or on expiry of a reasonable period in which to do so. (Regina vs.
Palacios 7 DLR 112)
Page 3507/12/2008
Exterritoriality—exception of persons and property from local jurisdiction on basis of
international customs
RIGHT OF LEGATION—
A.k.a. Right of Diplomatic Intercourse
Right of the State to send and receive diplomatic missions, which enables States
to carry on friendly intercourse
Not a natural or inherent right, but exists only by common consent
No legal liability incurred by the State for refusing to send or receive diplomatic
representatives
350
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
Composition of Mission:
1. Head of Mission—
a. Ambassador or Nuncios—accredited to Heads of state, and other heads
of mission of equivalent rank;
b. Envoys, ministers and internuncios—accredited Heads of States;
c. Charges d’ Affaires—accredited to Ministers of Foreign Affairs
2. Diplomatic Staff—those engaged in diplomatic activities and are accorded
diplomatic rank
Page 3517/12/2008
3. Administrative and Technical Staff—those employed in the administrative and
technical service of the mission
4. Service Staff—those engaged in the domestic service of the mission
DIPLOMATIC CORPS
A body consisting of all diplomatic envoys accredited to the same local or
receiving state. The doyen or the head of this body is the papal nuncio, if there is one,
or the oldest ambassador, or in the absence, the oldest minister plenipotentiary.
Letre de Creance (Letter of Credence)—states the name, rank and general character
of the mission, and a request for favorable reception and full credence
351
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
or from the receiving state.
Waiver of Immunities-
1. Diplomatic immunities can be waived, but the waiver cannot be made by the
individual concerned since such immunities are not personal to him.
2. Waiver may be made only by the government of the sending state if it concerns
the immunities of the head of mission.
3. In other cases, the waiver may be made either by the government or by the chief
Page 3527/12/2008
of mission.
4. Waiver of this privilege, however, does not include waiver of the immunity in
respect of the execution of judgment; a separate waiver of the latter is necessary.
CONSULAR RELATIONS—
Consul— A state agent residing abroad for various purposes but mainly in the interest
of commerce and navigation.
Kinds:
1. Consules missi—professional and career consuls, nationals of the appointing
state
2. Consul electi—selected by the appointing state either from its own citizens or
from among nationals abroad
352
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Rank:
1. Consul-general—heads several consular districts, or one exceptionally large
consular district
2. Consul—takes charge of small district, town or port
3. Vice-consul—assist the consul
4. Consular agent—usually entrusted with the performance of certain functions by
the consul.
¥say
Two (2) Documents Necessary for the Assumption of Consular Functions
1. Letters Patent (letter de provision)—letter of appointment or commission which
is transmitted by the sending state to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the
country where the consul is to serve
2. Exequatur—authorization given to the consul by the sovereign of the receiving
state, allowing him to exercise his function within the territory
Page 3537/12/2008
1. Inviolability of their correspondence, archives and other documents
2. Freedom of movement and travel
3. Immunity from jurisdiction for acts performed in official capacity except
infractions
4. Exemption from certain taxes and customs duties, military or jury service
5. Right to display national flag and emblem in the consulate
Immunities and privileges are also available to the members of the consular post, their
families and their private staff.
353
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
EXTRADITION
¥say
Sec. 2(a), PD 1069—extradition is the removal of an accused from the
Philippines with the object of placing him at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable
the requesting state or government to hold him in connection with any criminal
investigation directed against him or the execution of a penalty imposed on him under
the penal or criminal law of the requesting state or government.
Page 3547/12/2008
involved. In such case, extradition relies on the consent of the requested state that may
be given out of comity and good relations.
Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000, Mark Jimenez
is without any right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of an extradition
process by the DFA under RP-US Extradition Treaty.
Extradition court may adjudge a person as extraditable but the President has the final
say. Extradition is not criminal in nature—it is sui generis; thus, Bill of Rights provisions
on aspects of due process in criminal proceedings are not applicable)
Secretary of Justice vs. Muñoz, G.R. No. 140520, December 18, 2000, provisional
arrest of respondent was valid noting that the requirements of the Agreement on
documentation and the finding of probable cause have been complied with.
354
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Government of USA vs. Purganan, G.R. 148571, September 24, 2002, right to bail in
extradition is not available; ultimate purpose of extradition proceedings in court is to
determine whether the extradition request complies with the extradition treaty. But in
exceptional cases, bail may issue provided:
a. Accused is not a flight risk; and
¥say
b. Compelling circumstances warrant.
The right of prospective extraditee to apply for bail in this jurisdiction must be
viewed in light of the various treaty obligations of the Philippines concerning respect for
the promotion and protection of human rights. (Government of HK Special
Administrative Region vs. Hon. Olalia, Jr., G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007)
Page 3557/12/2008
355
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
¥say
other natural features which are so closely inter-related that such islands, waters and
natural features form an intrinsic geographical, economic and political entity, or which
historically have been regarded as such.
Internal or national waters-- bodies of water within the land mass, among them are
rivers, bays and gulfs, straits, and canals.
Page 3567/12/2008
Jurisdiction: The State exercises jurisdiction over everything found within its internal or
national waters. In the case of foreign merchant vessels docked in a local port or bay,
the coastal state exercises jurisdiction in civil matters, but criminal jurisdiction is
determined according to the:
a. English rule—the coastal State shall have jurisdiction over all offenses
committed on board the vessel except those which do not compromise the
peace of the port (the Philippines adheres to this rule);
b. French rule—flag state shall have jurisdiction over all offenses committed
on board a vessel except those which compromise the peace of the port.
Jurisdiction: same rule as in internal waters, save for innocent passage of merchant
vessels through archipelagic sea lanes
356
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The internal waters of the Philippines are now subject to right of innocent
passage as well as to sea lanes for all foreign ships under the right of archipelagic sea
lanes passage. The airspace above the internal waters within the archipelagic sea lanes
passage is subject to the air routes for all foreign aircraft.
¥say
Philippine archipelagic waters may also be subject to the continuous and
expeditious passage of foreign ships and aircraft—known as the right of archipelagic
sea lane passage. All ships and aircraft enjoy this right through designated sea lanes
and air routes.
What is the legal status of the waters enclosed by the archipelagic baselines of
the Philippines?
Page 3577/12/2008
Philippine sovereignty extends to these waters which are called archipelagic waters
under UNCLOS. It also extends to the airspace over archipelagic waters as well as their
bed and subsoil, including the resources therein.
Maritime zones of the Philippines: (See also discussion under National Territory)
1. Territorial Sea—the belt of the sea located between the coast and the internal
waters of the coastal state on the other hand, and the high seas on the other,
extending up to 12 nautical miles from the low-water mark, or in the case of
archipelagic states, from the baselines.
357
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Baseline—is a line from which the breadth of the territorial sea, the
contiguous zone and the exclusive economic zone is measured in order to
determine the maritime boundary of the coastal state.
Types of baseline:
ii. Normal Baseline Method
iii. Straight Baseline method
¥say
The territorial sea is a zone of Philippine sovereignty. However, it is subject to the
right of innocent passage by ships of all states.
It is restricted by the right of archipelagic sea lane passage but only such
portions of the territorial sea adjacent to the Philippine archipelagic waters traversed by
the archipelagic sea lanes.
Page 3587/12/2008
the purpose of traversing that sea without entering internal waters, or of
proceeding to or from internal waters. Passage is innocent if it is not prejudicial to
the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. It is required that passage
be continuous and expeditious, although a ship is allowed to stop and anchor if
this is incidental on account of force majeure or is required in order to assist
persons, ships or aircraft in danger or distress.
Innocent passage Transit passage
Pertains only to navigation of ships Includes rights of overflight
In designation of sea lanes and traffic Designation of sea lanes and traffic
separation schemes, the coastal state separation schemes is subject to adoption
shall only take account of the by competent international organization
recommendations of the competent upon proposal and agreement of states
international organization bordering the straits
As a rule, ships (not aircraft) of all states enjoy the right of innocent passage
through the territorial sea (not through internal waters). It is understood, however, that
the passage must be continuous and expeditious, except in cases of force majeure.
358
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Submarines and other underwater craft are required to navigate on the surface and to
show their flag.
Jurisdiction: Adjacent to the territorial sea, it is a zone where Philippines may exercise
certain protective jurisdiction. The coastal state may exercise limited jurisdiction over
¥say
the contiguous zone:
a. To prevent infringement of customs, fiscal immigration or sanitary laws
and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; and
b. To punish violation of the above laws and regulations committed within its
territory or in territorial sea.
The Philippines does not have sovereignty over the contiguous zone. It is a zone
of jurisdiction, not of sovereignty.
Page 3597/12/2008
This contiguous zone is not appurtenant to Philippine territory. For a coastal state
to assume pertinent rights, it must make a specific claim to its contiguous zone. If no
contiguous zone is claimed or declared, the rights that may otherwise pertain to the
contiguous are deemed to be subsumed in those pertaining to the territorial sea.
3. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)—shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles
from the archipelagic baselines. The Philippines has sovereign rights over EEZ
for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the natural
resources in this zone. In addition, it has jurisdictional rights with regard to
artificial islands, environmental protection, and marine scientific research.
The resources covered by the sovereign rights of the Philippines over its EEZ are
the living and non-living resources in the superjacent waters of the sea-bed, as well as
the resources of the sea-bed and its subsoil.
The Philippines is required to grant other states access to living resources in its
EEZ. It must determine its capacity to harvest the living resources. If it does not have
the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch, it shall give other states access to the
surplus of the allowable catch by means of agreements consistent with the UNCLOS.
359
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Philippine territory is not enlarged by reason of EEZ. The legal regime of the EEZ
limits Philippine rights to specified sovereign rights and to particular jurisdictional rights.
No territorial acquisition is involved.
In the EEZ, all states continue to enjoy the freedom of the high seas, subject to
the rights of the Philippines as thus mentioned. Generally, the rules of international law
pertaining to the high seas apply to EEZ.
Continental shelf—it is the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas extending
¥say
beyond the Philippine territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of the land
territory. It extends up to:
a. The outer edge of the continental margin; or
b. A distance of 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic baselines, whichever is the
farthest.
Jurisdiction: the coastal state enjoys the right of exploitation of oil deposits and other
resources in the continental shelf. In case of the continental shelf extends to the shores
Page 3607/12/2008
of another State, or is shared with another State, the boundary shall be determined in
accordance with equitable principle.
The continental shelf does not form part of the Philippine territory. The
Philippines has the sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purpose of
exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.
The natural resources covered by sovereign rights in the continental shelf consist
of (a) mineral and other non-living resources of the sea-bed and subsoil, (b) together
with living organisms which are sedentary.
The UNCLOS describes these sovereign rights as exclusive in the sense that if
the Philippines does not explore the continental shelf or exploit its natural resources, no
one may undertake these activities without its consent. Rights of the Philippines over
the continental shelf “do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any
express proclamation.”
The Philippines has the exclusive right to construct, to authorize and regulate the
construction, operation and use of artificial islands and installations. Its jurisdiction over
these is exclusive, in particular with respect to customs, fiscal, health, safety and
immigration regulations. It has also exclusive right to authorize as well as to regulate
drilling for all purposes.
360
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Deep Sea—(as part of the common heritage of mankind) resources of the deep seabed
owned by all States. All rights to the resources of the area are vested in mankind as a
whole. The Enterprise (organ of the Deep Sea Bed Authority) shall explore and exploit
the area.
Open for peaceful purposes and for exploitation for the benefit of mankind; right
of a coastal state to prevent or mitigate any grave and imminent danger to its coastline
or environment; governed by the International Seabed Authority.
¥say
High Seas—treated as res communes, thus, not territory of any particular State. These
are the waters which do not constitute the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial
sea and exclusive economic zones of a state. They are beyond the jurisdiction and
sovereign rights of States.
The traditional view is freedom of the high seas, i.e., they are open and available,
without restriction, to the use of all states for the purpose of navigation, overflight,
submarine cables/pipelines, construction of artificial islands or any installations, fishing,
mining, research, etc. however, this rule is subject to regulation arising from treaty
Page 3617/12/2008
stipulations.
Jurisdiction: may be exercised by the State on the high seas over the following:
a. Its vessels—the flag State has jurisdiction over its public vessels wherever
they are, and over its merchant vessels on the high seas. However, UNCLOS
considered the flag of convenience controversy.
b. Pirates—they are enemies of mankind; they may be captured on the open
seas by the vessels of any State, to whose territory they may be brought for
trial and punishment.
c. Drug trafficking and slave trade—all States shall cooperate in the suppression
of illicit traffic in narcotics and slave trade.
d. Right to visit and search—use the law of neutrality—the vessels or aircraft of
a belligerent State may visit and search any neutral merchant vessel on the
open seas and capture it if found to be engaged in activities favorable to the
other belligerent.
e. Hot pursuit— the State authorities can pursue an offender up to high seas
until he enters the territorial sea of another State.
1. The pursuit must commence from internal waters, territorial sea or
contiguous zone, of pursuing State
2. The pursuit must be uninterrupted
3. It must be conducted by warship, military aircraft, or government ships
authorized for the purpose
361
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
Freedom of navigation—refers to the right to sail ship on the high sea, subject
to international law and the laws of the flag of the state.
¥say
Page 3627/12/2008
Philippine ship
A ship may assume Philippine nationality if it flies Philippine flag and thus
become the flag state. A ship has the nationality of the state whose flag it is entitled to
fly. It is for the Philippines to decide the conditions by which it will accord a ship the right
to fly its flag.
It is required that there be “genuine link” between the Philippines and the ship.
However, so far, no objective criteria have been established to determine the existence
of a genuine link. If no genuine link is found to exist, no legal consequences have been
defined. The result is that the genuine link requirement fails to command broad
compliance.
362
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
The Philippines has exclusive jurisdiction over a Philippine ship on the high seas.
¥say
4. To ensure that the ship is surveyed by a qualified surveyor of ships and is
equipped with navigation equipment, nautical publications, and charts;
5. To ensure that the ship is manned by qualified master, officers and crew; and
6. To ensure that the officers and crew are conversant with and are required to
observe international regulations concerning safety at sea, prevention of
collisions, prevention, reduction and control of pollution, and maintenance of
radio regulations.
Page 3637/12/2008
General theory of criminal jurisdiction:
General rule: Vessels on high seas are subject to authority of flag-state
Exceptions: piracy, slave trade, hot pursuit, right of approach
Article 97, UNCLOS—the rule today is that no penal or administrative proceedings may
be instituted against the master of the ship except before the judicial or administrative
authorities either of the:
a. Flag-State; or
b. State of which such person is a national.
Flag State—the state whose nationality the ship possesses; for it is nationality that
gives the right to fly a country’s flag.
363
2008 Political Law and Public International Law
Personal Review Notes (taken from various sources: Sandoval lectures, Nachura, Bernas, Cruz, Agpalo, SBC & SSC-R
review materials, www.pinoylaw.net, etc.)
(whose flag is flown) and the vessel, i.e., the State must effectively exercise jurisdiction
and control in administrative, technical and social matters over the ship.
¥say
Page 3647/12/2008
364