Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law

(Doctinal

Rulings, Requisites and Definitions1) July, 2008

Prepared by

ATTY. LARRY D. GACAYAN
Professor of Law UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS COLLEGE OF LAW Baguio City (POLITICAL LAW REVIEW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II )

BAR REVIEWER
(Political Law)

Cosmopolitan Review Center (CRC)
Baguio City Branch, UC, Baguio City

Baguio Powerhaus Law Review Center
Baguio City ******************************************

PART I---Constitution of Government
1. Define Political Law It is 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. (PEOPLE VS. PERFECTO, 43 Phil. 887) 2. What are included in Political Law? • Constitutional Law; • Administrative Law • Law of Public Officers • Law on Public Corporation • Election Law 3. What is the doctrine of constitutional supremacy? Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private
1

The examinee is presumed to have mastered the Constitutional provisions.

2

purposes is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. 4. What are the requisites for the exercise of “people’s initiative” to amend the Constitution? It is provided under Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution which provides that “Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon 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 voter therein.” The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. 5. Is there a law which would provide for the mechanism for the people to propose amendments to the Constitution by people’s initiative? While Congress had enacted RA 6735 purportedly to provide the mechanisms for the people’s exercise the power to amend the Constitution by people’s initiative, the Supreme Court in MIRIAM DEFENSORSANTIAGO, et al. Vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 & June 10, 1997, the Supreme Court held that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by “empowering” the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act. In LAMBINO VS. COMELEC, however, the Supreme Court on November 21, 2006, in the Minute Resolution of the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration held that RA No. 6735 is adequate and complete for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution through people’s initiative by a vote of 10 members as per Certification of the En Banc’s Clerk of Court. 5-a. May the question “Do you approve the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution changing the form of government from Presidential-Bicameral to Parliamentary-Unicameral” be allowed to be submitted to the people for their ratification or rejection as a means of amending the Constitution by people’s initiative if the requisite number of signatories (12% nationwide and at least 3% for every legislative district) are met? No for two (2) reasons. 1. The said “proposal” did not indicate which provisions of Articles VI and VII are actually being amended which is a must under Section 2, Art. XVII. Otherwise, who shall make the amendments if the people in a plebiscite approve the same;

3

2. Changing the form of government from presidential to parliamentary is an act of REVISING the Constitution which is not allowed under Art. XVII, Section 2. People’s initiative may only be allowed to propose amendments to the Constitution, not revision. 6. What are the requisites before an amendment to the Constitution by “people’s initiative” is sufficient in form and in substance? In the case of RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO , together with 6,327,952 registered voters vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160, the following requisites must be present: 1. The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign for and on their behalf; 2. As an initiative upon a petition, THE PROPOSAL MUST BE EMBODIED IN A PETITION. These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who will express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is “DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETIITON “ ONLY IF THE PEOPLE SIGN ON A PETITION THAT OCNTAINS THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. 7. Distinguish “Revision” from “amendment” of the Constitution. “Revision” is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. It may result in the rewriting whether the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps some of its important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new one. “Amendment” of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in

4

their effect. (SINCO, Vicente, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW) 8. May Congress propose amendments to the Constitution while at the same time calling for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution? Yes, there is no prohibition for Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution and at the same time call for the convening of a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. The word “or” in the provision “…Congress, upon a vote of ¾ of all its members; OR [2] A constitutional Convention” under Section 1, Art. XVII also means “AND”. (GONZALES VS. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774) 9. What is the “Doctrine of Proper Submission” in connection with proposed amendments to the Constitution? “Doctrine of Proper Submission” means all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, not piecemeal. (TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702) 10. What is the archipelagic doctrine or archipelago theory? It is the 2nd sentence of Section 1, Art. I of the Constitution which states that “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.” 11. What are the elements of “state”? As held in COLLECTOR VS. CAMPOS RUEDA, 42 SCRA 23, the elements of a state are. 1. people 2. territory 3. sovereignty 4. government 12. Are the two-fold function of government as enumerated by the Supreme Court in BACANI VS. NACOCO, 100 Phil. 468 (Ministrant [merely directory] and Constituent [Mandatory] Functions) still applicable today? No more as held in ACCFA VS. CUGCO, 30 SCRA 649. This is due to complexities of the changing society, the two-fold function of the government as classified by President Wilson is no longer relevant as a result of the changing society wherein what are considered merely ministrant functions of the State before are now considered constituent , or vice versa.

or usurps. the same is de jure. first by Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector. 75 Phil. such as the government of England under the Commonwealth. b. What are the three (3) kinds of de facto government? As held in CO KIM CHAM VS. which was reduced to British possession in the war of 1812. be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. 113. "But there is another description of government. in Maine. is considered de jure if it is already accepted by the family of nations or other countries like the United States. and which is denominated a government of paramount force. and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government. The second is that which is established and maintained by military forces who invade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war. or government de facto in a proper legal sense. And the third is that established as an independent government by the inhabitants of a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state of such as the government of the Southern Confederacy in revolt not concerned in the present case with the first kind. and Tampico. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1). 14. Japan. called also by publicists a government de facto. Germany. Mexico. perhaps. What kind of government was the “Aquino Government” after former President Marcos left Malaqcanang for Hawaii due to the EDSA Revolution in February 1986.5 13. as the cases of Castine. occupied during the war with Mexico. A government formed as a result of a people’s revolution. the three (3) kinds of de facto governments are: a. 145 SCRA 160. and . As held in In Re: SATURNINO BERMUDEZ. but which might. The first. the rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter. is that government that gets possession and control of. by the troops of the United States. by force or by the voice of the majority. and others. c. Great Britain. that its existence is maintained by active military power with the territories. VALDEZ TAN KEH. but only with the second and third kinds of de facto governments.

BAGATSING. May a citizen refuse to render personal military service/training because he does not have military inclination or he does not want to kill or be killed? . 53 SCRA 476 and COMMISSIONER VS.) 16. the political laws of the said state are deemed automatically suspended but the former government automatically comes to life and will be in force and in effect again upon the re-establishment of the former government. International Law. 615. and AGUSTIN VS. that while it exists it necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who. it "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction. 18. 19. do not become responsible. the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right shall prevail. for those acts.6 (2). though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government." A state then. In case of conflict between a constitutional right of a citizen and a generally accepted principle of international law. p. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS. KURODA VS. the same shall give way to the constitutional right of the citizens to “peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of their grievances”. PEOPLE VS. if it chooses to. (Cited in Reagan vs. 88 SCRA 195). GOZO. Commissioner. 15. 143 SCRA 397) 17. or wrongdoers. What is the “incorporation theory” or the “Incorporation Clause” of the Constitution? It is the principle embodied in Section 2." The opinion was at pains to point out though that even then. 90 Phil. EDU. What is the postliminy theory or jus postliminium? When a foreign power occupies a state and exercises the powers of government. Though Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations prohibits rallies within 500 feet of any foreign embassy. 83 Phil 171. Article II of the Constitution which states that “The Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land”.125 SCRA 553. may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. not its disappearance. (MEJOFF VS. by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force. which shall prevail? In the case of REYES VS. 70. JALANDONI. ROBERTSON. What is the doctrine of sovereignty as “auto limitation”? In the succinct language of Jellinek. (Taylor. there is at the most diminution of jurisdictional rights.

mosques. [3] national interest. Sec. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. directly or indirectly. 3(3). denomination or religion. VI. 4. is assigned to the armed forces. ART. No public money or property shall be appropriated. and [4] the right to self-determination. churches. 29 . or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. 28 (3). No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. XIV. benefit. 66 Phil. shall forever be allowed. III. directly and exclusively used for religious.. or government orphanage or leprosarium. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered…as political parties. or to any penal institution. VI) 5. applied. 13. II. NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL OR POLITICAL RIGHTS. 1. 2(5). C. without additional cost to the government. Charitable institutions. VI. ART. for the use. church. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. without discrimination or preference. LAGMAN. ART. (NOTE: Religious organizations are also prohibited ion connection with sectoral representatives under Art. The Philippines shall pursue an independent foreign policy. Sec. Sec.(2). Is the “separation of church and state” a myth or a reality? It is a reality as shown by the following provisions of the Constitution. IX. 20. charitable. 5. At the option in writing by parents. “The appellant’s argument that he does not want to join the armed forces because “he does not want to kill or be killed” and that “he has no military inclination” is not acceptable because it is his obligation to join the armed forces in connection with the “defense of the State” provision of the Constitution. except when such priest. 21. for the benefit. What are the factors to be considered by the Philippines in dealing with other nations? As provided in Section 7 of Art.7 No as held in PEOPLE VS. 3. 2. ART. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be [1] national sovereignty. [2] territorial integrity. minister. ART. non-profit cemeteries…actually. religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children in elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by religious authorities to which said children belong. paid. . or support of any sect. Sec.

NEW YORK. Art. May the State require parents to enroll their small children only to public schools valid? As held in PIERCE VS. (Note: In the United States. Is a law prohibiting the sale of “girlie(bold) magazines” to minors violates the right of parents in rearing their children for civic efficiency? No. as held in the case of GINSBERG VS. a law prohibiting the sale of “girlie magazines” [bold?) is constitutional and does not violate the above provision. III) which provides in part that the “State shall strengthen the family” does not take a stand on divorce though it appears that a divorce law would “break” the family instead of “strengthening” it. This is in accordance with this provision which states that the parents have the “natural and primary right in rearing their child for civic efficiency…” 25. II prohibits all forms of abortion except “therapeutic abortion” or when the life of the mother is in danger. if it is consistent with national interest. 23. Is “divorce” prohibited by the 1987 Philippine Constitution? : Father Bernas opines that the provision of the Constitution (Section 12. Is there absolute prohibition for the Philippines to be equipped with nuclear weapons? No. 23. 390 US 629 (1969). 268 US 510 (1925). May the State prohibit the teaching of a particular language in any school? No as held in MEYER VS. NEBRASKA. Art. “the Philippines. consistent with the national interest. 260 US 260 (1922) because the child is not a mere creature of the State and the parents have the natural right and duty of rearing their children for civic efficiency. WADE]) 24. As such. They have the right to choose which school is best suited for the .8 22. a Divorce Law to be passed by Congress may or may not be unconstitutional. a law requiring small kids to be enrolled in public schools only is unconstitutional since it interferes with the right of parents in rearing their children. Art. This is so because parents could buy said magazines for their children if they believe the same is already suitable to the understanding of their child. SOCIETY OF SISTERS. abortion is allowed but only up to the 2nd trimester of the pregnancy [ROE vs. the same is not prohibited. II.” As such. Is abortion allowed in the Philippines? Section 12. adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. as stated in Section 8. 26.

starting from the 1935 document. As such. HAVE REPUDIATED laissez faire (or the doctrine of free enterprise) as an economic principle. Such act would violate Section 28. Art. Such act would also violate the “right to information on matters of public concern” as well as the “public accountability of public officials” as embodied in Section 1. XI of the 1987 Constitution.9 development of their children without interference from the State. This is so because under Art. Do we practice the free enterprise system in the Philippines or is it the welfare state concept? Distinguish the two. GORDON. 27-a. VI. II of the Constitution mandating disclosure of all public transactions involving the public interest. What are the constitutionally allowed “delegation of legislative power” by Congress? . Sections 6 and 9. As held in ACCFA VS. May the PCGG Commissioners refuse to appear before a Senate Committee conducting alleged irregularities committed by them while sitting in the Board of PHILCOMSAT. 286 SCRA 109 where it was held that the Philippine Constitutions. a private firm sequestered by the government on account of Executive Order No. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE CHILDREN ARE NOT MERE CREATURES OF THE STATE. not to mention that such would render nugatory the power of Congress under Section 21. What Are the limitations to the Congress power to exercise legislative power? The limitations are: 1. The said doctrine was reiterated in PHILIPPINE COCONUT DESICCATORS VS. protection to labor… (NOTE. housing. XII. It is the welfare-state concept which is being followed as shown by the constitutional provision on agrarian reform. it nevertheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. 27. and although the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy. Art. PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY. 30 SCRA 649 “the Philippines never practiced the free enterprise system. 1 providing that they should not be the subject of any investigation in connection with their acts in connection with the performance of their duties as such? No. (SABIO VS. CUGCO. it is very clear that the government reserves the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare and when the public interest so requires. 504 SCRA 704) 28. it cannot pass irrepealable laws 2. non-delegability of legislative powers 29. however. that the 1987 Constitution have provisions which provide for “free enterprise). free enterprise does not call for the removal of “protective regulations” for the benefit of the general public. Art. principle of separation of powers 3.

30. such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. The Congress may by law. 2) Sec. authorize the President to fix within specified limits. carried out or implemented by the delegate which is not given any discretion. 28 (2) of Article VI. 15 SCRA 569: (a) Completeness Test simply means that the law must be complete in itself when it left Congress. import and export quotas. Article VI---The Congress shall. of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters thereof. 1 ) Sec. 31. tonnage and wharfage dues. XVII of the Constitution and Section 32. for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as Congress may provide. 23 (2) of Article VI (Emergency powers to the President in case of war or other national emergency. the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the government. etc. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. tariff rates. What is the completeness test? The sufficiency of standard test? As held in PELAEZ VS. Unless sooner withdrawn by Resolution of Congress.10 The permissible delegation of legislative power are. whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress of local legislative body after the registration of a petition thereof signed by at least 10% of the total number of registered voters. AUDITOR GENERAL. and (b) Sufficiency of Standards Test simply requires Congress to fix a standard. Art. 3) Delegation to local governments 4) Delegation of Rule-making power to administrative bodies 5) Delegation to the People (Section 2. Some of the standards to guide the delegate are general welfare. provide for a system of initiative and referendum. public interest. as early as possible. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. and the exceptions therefrom. It must set forth therein the policy to be executed. Is a Filipino citizen who became a member of the US Armed Forces and therefore at one time a US Citizen considered “natural born” for purposes of complying with the qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives? .

To do so would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. or accepting commission in. 33. may the 2nd placer be declared the winner in his place? When may the 2 nd placer be allowed to be declared the winner? It depends. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and TEODORO CRUZ. 2004. the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. The said principle was laid down as early as 1912 and reiterated in the cases of LABO VS. As held in OCAMPO VS. 1. While a Member of Congress is not allowed to appear as counsel for any party in court or before administrative bodies.a. Hence. Act No. COMELEC. MARK JIMENEZ. If the candidate for Congressman is subsequently disqualified for non-compliance of the residence requirement under Art. may he do so as a “stockholder”? .11 Yes as held in ANTONIO BENGSON III VS. HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and MARIO CRESPO. is it automatic for the COMELEC to hold a special election? No. VI. ABELLA VS. 2. The said Oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship. 357 SCRA 545 because Rep. This final judgment must be rendered BEFORE THE ELECTION. 120 SCRA 337) 34. 2630 provides that “Any person who had lost his Philippine Citizenship by rendering service to. when a candidate has not been disqualified by final judgment during the election day he was voted for. or after separation from the Armed Forces of the United states. there must be a law passed by Congress appropriating the funds for the said purpose. The reason behind this is that the people voted for him bona fide and in the honest belief that the candidate was then qualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the exercise of the powers of government. a.k. acquired US citizenship. DE VENECIA. COMELEC. COMELEC. This was the ruling in the case of CODILLA VS. There must be a final judgment disqualifying a candidate in order that the votes of a disqualified candidate can be considered “stray”. The disqualification of a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes AFTER THE ELECTION does not entitle the second placer to be declared the winner. ( LOZADA vs. COMELEC and DOMINO VS. the Armed Forces of the United States. MAY REACQUIRE PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY TAKING AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND REGISTERING THE SAME WITH THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRY IN THE PLACE WHERE HE RESIDES OR LAST RESIDED IN THE PHILIPPINES. 32. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives under Section 9 of Article VII. June 15.” And he shall still be considered “natural born” Filipino citizen.

7 SCRA 347. that the journal prevails over the enrolled bill on all matters required to be entered in the journals. GIMENEZ. this was the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of MIRIAM DEFENSOR and REP. May a court suspend a member of Congress when Section 16 [3]. What could not be done directly could not likewise be done indirectly.S. when imposed. like yeas and nays on the final reading of a bill or on any question at the request of 1/5 of the members present. vs. A penalty of suspension. PAREDES VS. If the enrolled bill provides that it is urea formaldehyde is the one exempt from tax. the former prevails and only CURATIVE LEGISLATION COULD CHANGE THE SAME. 35. [Justice Isagani Cruz]) 38. if the President of the Philippines.” (NOTE. Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives withdraw their signatures as a result of an anomaly surrounding the printing of the final copy of the bill. VS.12 No as held in PUYAT vs. then. however. However. In case of conflict between the entries in a journal of both Houses of Congress and extraneous evidence like affidavits of witnesses. So a member of Congress who is a stockholder of the corporation involved in a case is not allowed to appear under the guise that he is appearing as such. SANDIGANBAYAN. DE GUZMAN. which shall prevail? As held in U. which shall prevail? In CASCO PHIL. May Congress change the existing membership of the Commission on Appointments or Electoral Tribunals as a result of the changes of membership of the different political parties? . In case of conflict between the journal and the enrolled bill. PONS. 729. not as counsel for the corporation. it was held by the Supreme Court that The enrolled bill prevails over the journal. 34 Phil. the journal will prevail since what is left is no longer considered an “enrolled bill. shall mot exceed sixty days? Yes. the journal prevails over extraneous evidence like accounts of newspaper journalists and reporters as to what the proceedings all about. and with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its members. 37. 113 SCRA 31. Article VI appears to give such exclusive power to each House only for disorderly behavior. suspend or expel a Member. RA 3019 applies to all government officers and employees. 36. and not urea and formaldehyde which appears in the journal which was really approved. NOT JUDICIAL LEGISLATION.

“A witness who refuses to answer a query by the Committee may be detained during the term of the members imposing said penalty but the detention should not be too long as to violate the witness’ right to due process of law. VS. 2006 . (BONDOC VS. except only to vote for a party-mate who is involved in the protest. VI or during the “question hour”. then the President may validly demand that they must get her consent first because such appearance is DISCRETIONARY. NAZARENO. in a preliminary voting in a protest case against an LDP Member. it may not change a Member who completely heard and participated in a particular case [and has already indicated his vote to the members of the tribunal] and replace him with another who has no participation therein. May the President validly prohibit members of the Cabinet and those of the executive department from appearing before any Committee of Congress without her consent? It depends. 1991) 39. SEC. ET AL. the membership of the Senators was only “temporary” so as not to result in the change of membership in the Commission on Appointments) 38-a. voted in favor of the other party and against the candidate of his very own party? While as a rule the different political parties may change their representatives in the Electoral Tribunal or Commission on Appointments.. if the invitation to appear is based on Section 22. It would also violate the right to information on the part of the citizens. (NOTE: In Cunanan vs. May a political party (LDP) replace its representative in the House of Representatives Electoral Commission who. 16977. 29. represented by SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON. No. May a committee of Congress cite a person for contempt of court for refusing to answer its questions during investigations in aid of legislation? How long may it imprison such witness? As held in ARNAULT vs.. the number of representatives of the different parties in the Commission on Appointments may also be changed in proportion to their actual memberships. PINEDA. 87 Phil. VI. (SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES. April 20.” 40.13 Yes If the changes in the political party affiliations of the members of Congress is substantial and at the same time permanent so as to dramatically increase the membership of one party while significantly reducing the other. such act of the President is unconstitutional for it would violate the oversight powers of Congress and because the appearance of said executive officers is MANDATORY. If the appearance is due to the power of Congress to investigate in aid of legislation under Section 21. September 26. G.R. Art. EXEC. However. EDUARDO ERMITA. 488 SCRA 1) . ET AL. Art. Tan. Such would be a travesty of justice.

It ruled that there are two (2) kinds of executive privilege. 40-b. In Re: Sealed Case No. The former pertains to “communications. the presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their entirety.4[30] the U. 96-3124. to decision-making of executive officials. recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated. 2. Who are covered by this rule? The Nixon and post-Watergate cases established the broad contours of the presidential communications privilege.S. Court recognized a great public interest in preserving “the confidentiality of conversations that take place in the President’s performance of his official duties. Court of Appeals delved deeper. Id. 3[29] Nixon. VI of the Constitution. The first is rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of power and the President’s unique constitutional role.S. Unlike the deliberative process privilege. the second on common law privilege.” The latter includes ‘advisory opinions. they are characterized by marked distinctions. the U. Practice and Recent Developments at p. one is the presidential communications privilege and. .” Apparently. the presumption is founded on the “President’s generalized interest in confidentiality.” Accordingly. and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones5[31] As a consequence. documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential.S. 1997. the other is the deliberative process privilege. Law.2[28] In United States v.14 40-a. While a Member of the Cabinet may be compelled to appear before Congress under Section 21.” The privilege is said to be necessary to guarantee the candor of presidential advisors and to provide “ the President and those who assist him… with freedom to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. the deliberative process privilege. 2 [28] 3[29] 4[30] 5[31] CRS Report for Congress. Art. Presidential communications privilege applies to decision-making of the President while. Explain the “executive privilege” doctrine. June 17. may he be compelled to answer questions regarding his conversations with the President on matters subject of the investigation/inquiry in aid of legislation? No if the conversations are covered by the “executive privilege”. 418 U. 683.” It thus considered presidential communications as “presumptively privileged. Distinguish the “presidential communications privilege” and the “deliberative process privilege” which comprise said “executive privilege”. Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History.” In In Re: Sealed Case.

Inc. the Deputy Attorney General and the Pardon Attorney were deemed to be too remote from the President and his senior White House advisors to be protected. 103. Thus.S. 9 [35] Roviaro v. diplomatic and other security matters. Department of Justice7[33] tested the In Re: Sealed Case principles.6[32] The situation in Judicial Watch. 7 [33] 365 F. etc. this Court held that there is a “governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military. 92 U. Reynolds. found insufficient to justify the confidentiality of the 4.10[36] An area where the privilege is highly revered is in foreign relations. a nondelegable. Chicago v. the power to negotiate treaties. Cir. 53. The majority concluded that.S. Law. however. v.App. 111. United States.S.C.S. 59-61. Turning on who are the officials covered by the presidential communications privilege. Evid. the privilege is meant to encompass only those functions that form the core of presidential authority. PEA. the lesser protections of the deliberative process privilege would suffice. Waterman Steamship Corp. core-presidential function. Majority of the above jurisprudence have found their way in our jurisdiction. In Re: Sealed Case confines the privilege only to White House Staff that has “operational proximity” to direct presidential decision-making. appointment and removal power. There. while the presidential decision involved is the exercise of the President’s pardon power.. United States.341 withheld documents. 353 U.15 congressional or judicial negation of the presidential communications privilege is always subject to greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process privilege. 738 F. but concluded that an organizational test was more appropriate for confining the potentially broad sweep that would result from the In Re: Sealed Case’s functional test. Inc.3d 1108. R.1341-43 (D. Courts ruled early that the Executive has a right to withhold documents that might reveal military or state secrets. 18-19. The Court conceded that functionally those officials were performing a task directly related to the President’s pardon power. Practice and Recent Developments at pp. Airlines. the power to grant pardons and reprieves.. 141. 106-107 (1875). Inc. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields.D.” such as commander-in-chief power. 1984). 345 U. and discussions in closed-door 6[32] CRS Report for Congress. 333 U. 1. 105. 10 [36] See Friedman v. PCGG11[38]. v.12[39] there is also a recognition of the confidentiality of Presidential conversations. 183. 8[34] See United States v. 133 (1998).9[35] and information related to pending investigations. But more specific classifications of communications covered by executive privilege are made in older cases. involving what the court characterized as “quintessential and non-delegable Presidential power. correspondences. . 2d 1336. 12[39] Supra. Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History.8[34] identity of government informers in some circumstances. Serv. In Chavez v. 361 U.” In Chavez v. 11 [38] 360 Phil. Totten v. the sole-authority to receive ambassadors and other public officers.S.C. That privilege was. 64 Fed. 6-8 (1953).

The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need. Article VII. Article VII. the information relating to these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others. A Commentary.16 Cabinet meetings. the bases are presidential communications privilege and executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations. 18[45] Bernas. such as the area of military and foreign relations. indeed. such that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. 17[44] CRS Report for Congress. First. The above cases.18[45] Second. 16 [43] Section 20 and 21. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President. the power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. Article VII. Using the above elements. i. petitioner can be considered a close advisor. 15 [42] Section 19.e. 903. This authority of the President to enter into executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. In Re Sealed Case and Judicial Watch. the communications are “received” by a close advisor of the President. to wit: 1) 2) The protected communication must relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.J. Under our Constitution. the concept of presidential communications privilege is fully discussed. being a member of President 13 14 Section 18. S. we are convinced that. Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers.. Ermita. somehow provide the elements of presidential communications privilege. Law Practice and Recent Developments. In Senate v.. the claim of executive privilege is highly recognized in cases where the subject of inquiry relates to a power textually committed by the Constitution to the President. p. Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History. the communications relate to a “quintessential and non-delegable power” of the President. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. 2003 Ed.” The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. As may be gleaned from the above discussion. Under the “operational proximity” test. Nixon. especially.13[40] appointing. supra. the President is the repository of the commander-in-chief. Article VII.15 [42] and diplomatic16[43] powers. the communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. Section 16. [41] [40] .14[41] pardoning.17[44] 3) Simply put.

(NOTE: In Nixon. . But broad as is this power of inquiry. specific need for evidence in pending criminal trial” outweighs the President’s “generalized interest in confidentiality. 41. there is a pending criminal proceeding where the information is requested and it is the demands of due process of law and the fair administration of criminal justice that the information be disclosed. Furthermore. including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self.) We see no dispute on this. diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.17 Arroyo’s cabinet." It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected.S. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress. In this regard.” However. the US Supreme Court held that invocation of “executive privilege” is unavailing if it involves the commission of a crime and there is already a pending criminal case. It is settled in United States v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. Jr. In the present case. In Bengzon.” It stressed that it is “not concerned here with the balance between the President’s generalized interest in confidentiality x x x and congressional demands for information. These are functions 19 [48] Supra. Executive Secretary Ermita categorically claims executive privilege on the grounds of presidential communications privilege in relation to her executive and policy decision-making process and diplomatic secrets. And third. the information here is elicited. Nixon19[48] that “demonstrated. but in a legislative inquiry. the present case’s distinction with the Nixon case is very evident. in Nixon. the President did not interpose any claim of need to protect military. This is the reason why the U. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. not in a criminal proceeding. 1991. 20. vs. In Nixon. it was held that “the power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not. "The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected. on the procedural setting or the context in which the claim is made. Nov.” Unlike in Nixon. May a person validly refuse to honor an invitation to appear before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with its alleged investigation “in aid of legislation”? Yes. Court was quick to “ limit the scope of its decision. Ermita stressed that the validity of the claim of executive privilege depends not only on the ground invoked but. absolute or unlimited. Senate v. also. there is no adequate showing of a compelling need that would justify the limitation of the privilege and of the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority. it is not unlimited.

the President. Secretary of Finance. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. the Speaker of the house of Representatives. It is the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type. 5.” 44.R. [1] authority to impound given to him by Congress. the Chief justice of the Supreme Court. not from the House of Representatives. May local legislative bodies validly cite a person in contempt of court (as what Congress could do) for refusing to appear therein or to answer the questions of the members thereof? No. 72492. 41. bills of local application. When is transfer of appropriations allowed by the Constitution? Only those covered by Section 25 [5] which provides that “No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations. and the heads of the constitutional commissions may. Proponents of impoundment have invoked at least three (3) principal sources of authority of the President. No. (NOTE: In Tolentino vs. and [3] the Faithful execution clause of the Constitution. by law. 42.) 43. VI. however. What is the so-called “executive impoundment”? It means that although an item of appropriation is not vetoed by the President. This is so because the Senate is allowed to “propose amendments” to bills which must exclusively originate from the House of Representatives. [2] the executive power drawn from his power as Commander-in-chief. Note that in this case the SC held that the Countryside Development Fund (CDF) or “Pork Barrel” of Congressmen and Senators is CONSTITUTIONAL because the same is “set aside for ‘infrastructure. be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. the Supreme Court held that such power was not delegated by Congress to local government units. bills authorizing increase of the public debt. either expressly or impliedly. to spend funds made possible by Congress. the Supreme Court held that the E-VAT Law is constitutional even if the same was the VERSION which came from the Senate. Art. purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority . revenue or tariff bills. and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of representatives. No inquiry is an end in itself. 155 SCRA 421. G. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated are indefensible. 1987.18 of the executive and judicial departments of government. What are the bills that must exclusively originate from the House of Representatives? Under Section 24. SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF DUMAGUETE CITY. the President of the Senate. All appropriations. Nov. In NEGROS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE VS. he however refuses for whatever reason.

1998. (PHILCONSA VS. MOON & CO.38) 2) GOV'T. 46.S. THE TOTALITY OF PRIOR. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. it is supposed to be a law passed by Congress that implements it. G. Administrative Power. HARRISON. ET AL. 48.. Is President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo a de jure or a de facto President? If de jure. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of the government. What is the “totality test” used by the Supreme Court in holding that former President Joseph Estrada resigned as President on January 20. Otherwise. No. 235 SCRA 506) 45. Prescinding from the foregoing precepts. ( L. the AO establishes a system of identification that is all-encompassing in scope. 127685. ENRIQUEZ. not by an Administrative Order issued by the President. by Administrative Order. The President of the Philippines. 529. The subject of AO 308 therefore is beyond the power of the President to issue and it is a usurpation of legislative power. read also the separate opinion. affects the life and liberty of every Filipino citizens and foreign residents and therefore. which is supposed to be exercised by the President. CONTEMPORANEOUS AND POSTERIOR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BEARING MATERIAL RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE.19 projects and activities. 2007? THIS IS THE TOTALITY TEST. May the President refuse to enforce a law on the ground that in his opinion it is unconstitutional? No. VS.R. 43 Phil. July 23. and credit facilities to qualified beneficiaries as proposed and identified by said Senators and Congressmen. 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. SPRINGER. 50 Phil. he will be violating the doctrine of separation of powers because by doing so. not merely to implement it. he will be arrogating unto himself the power to interpret the law. is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. mandates the “ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM” and appropriating funds therefore?Is this within his “executive power”? No as held by the Supreme Court in BLAS OPLE VS. 47. RUBEN TORRES. how did she succeed? Resignation or permanent disability of former President Estrada? . AO 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an Administrative Order. VS.

May the President make temporary appointments involving the members of the Cabinet while Congress in session or not in session? Distinguish ad interim appointment and appointment in an acting capacity. EXEC. 51.. Article VII applies only to temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety and not to the judiciary. The temporary appointments are valid. Yes provided the temporary appointments of cabinet members do not exceed one (1) year. What appointments made by the President shall be the subject of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments? Only those covered by the 1st sentence of Section 16. The power to appoint is essentially executive in nature and the legislature may not interfere with the exercise of this executive power except in those instances when the Constitution expressly allows it to interfere.. Art. 2001. and other officers are vested in him in this Constitution. 2001 “expressing full support to the assumption into office by VP Arroyo as President of the Philippines”. 49. SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA. AQUILINO PIMENTEL. another resolution dated January 24.20 Since both Houses of Congress had recognized that Arroyo is the President when they passed Resolution “expressing their support to the administration of Her Excellency Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. 472 SCRA 587) 1. other public ministers and consuls. Art. VII which are the heads of the executive departments. 2001 “confirming President Arroyo’s nomination of Senator Teopisto Guingona. her government is de jure. It is a stop-gap measure intended to fill an office for a limited time until the appointment of a permanent occupant to the office. The essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary nature. May the President makes appointment to vacancies in the judiciary within two months immediately before the next presidential election and up to the end of his term” in order to comply with the requirement of Sections 4 and 8. vs. et al. or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain. In case of vacancy in an office occupied by an alter ego of the President. ambassadors. Section 15. such as the office of a department secretary. (SEN. and the Resolution dated February 7. VIII for him to fill up vacancies in the judiciary within 90 days from the submission of the list of nominees by the Judicial and Bar Council? No. et al. the President must necessarily appoint an alter ego of her choice as . Jr. President of the Philippines” which was passed on January 24. as Vice President of the Philippines”. 50.

53. Congress. VII which provides that The President shall have control of all the executive departments . There is a need to distinguish ad interim appointments and appointments in an acting capacity. whereas acting appointments may be extended any time that there is a vacancy. supra." "Supervision" on the other hand means "overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. ad interim appointments are submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or rejection. 52. (MONDANO VS. VII of the Constitution.21 acting secretary before the permanent appointee of her choice could assume office. April 19.. May the President validly require all officers and employees under the executive department to maintain ID systems and have ID cards? Yes in accordance with her power of control under Section 17. 55. What is the doctrine of qualified political agency? It simply means that “the President is not expected to perform in person an the multifarious executive and administrative functions. Art. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA. ET AL. ad interim appointments are extended only during the recess of Congress. Art. He must be of the President’s confidence and provided that the temporary appointment does not exceed one (1) year. What is the power of control of the President. While both are effective upon acceptance. What is the “take care power” of the President of the Philippines? It is the power of the President under Section 17. SILVOSA) 54. through a law cannot impose on the President the obligation of automatically appointing the Undersecretary as her alter ego. Acting appointments are a way of temporarily circumventing the need of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. (KILUSANG MAYO UNO VS. acting appointments are not submitted to the Commission on appointments. bureaus and offices. "Control" has been defined as "the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the judgment of the former for test of the latter. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. Moreover. Torres. . 2006 & June 20. 2006) But not for a national ID system which includes civilians as held in Ople vs. Distinguish it from power of supervision.

the grounds are only invasion and rebellion WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT. RANDOLF S. Pano. AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. No. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. or even reverse any order of the Secretary of Natural Resources and other Cabinet Secretaries . What are the differences between the power of the President to declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus under the 1987 Constitution and the previous Constitutions? Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. May the President under the 1987 Constitution validly issue decrees after declaring a state of national emergency. such would be considered “political question” which is beyond the review powers of the courts. Under our constitutional set-up. President Arroyo did not only rely on Section 18. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution. 2006 . 57. DAVID. there is a definite period for the said suspension unlike before and more importantly. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. 171396. nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.. et al.22 The Office of the Executive Secretary is an auxillary unit which assists the President. 21 SCRA 895). Likewise. nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function. it was held that in declaring a state of national emergency. The Supreme Court may review. he shall be released..R. nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies. otherwise. the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof. vs. Where the Executive Secretary acts "by authority of the President" his decision is that of the President. any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within 3 days. and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing. G. he has undisputed jurisdiction to affirm. modify. Article VII of the Constitution. the Executive Secretary acts for and in behalf of the President: and by authority of the President. Previously. (Lacson-Magallanes Co. a provision calling . May 3. 56. Inc. such acts of the President may be reviewed not only by the Supreme Court but also the Congress of the Philippines. May she direct the take over of business affected with national interest by reason of the “emergency” which she herself proclaimed? I n t h e c a s e o f PROF. et Al VS.

No. neither Martial Law nor a state of rebellion nor a state of emergency can justify President Arroyo’s exercise of legislative power by issuing decrees. 2001. if: first. When may the courts still validly decide moot and academic cases? A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events. 429 SCRA 736). is also unconstitutional. third. the bar.20 so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. courts decline jurisdiction over such case21 or dismiss it on ground of mootness. 103055-56. Section 1. there is a grave violation of the Constitution ( Province of Batangas vs. The Supreme Court ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate “decrees. . 429 SCRA 736. Nos. such as the taking over of privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. second. January 26. the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself.” Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. No. No.” To be sure. when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench.23 on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence. Generally. Vda. invasion or rebellion. Court of Appeals. 147780. De Dabao v. 59. Article VI categorically states that “[t]he legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.R. Romulo). G. a provision on the State’s extraordinary power to take over privately-owned public utility and business affected with public interest. the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved (Lacson vs. The “moot and academic” principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. Article XII. Royal Cargo Corporation v. Perez. May 27. otherwise moot and academic. Likewise. and 20 21 Province of Batangas v. 152774. Romulo. Courts will decide cases.R. G.R. . 2004. 2004. May 10. and the public (Province of Batangas vs. 152774. Romulo. 2004. What are the requisites of judicial review? Courts may exercise the power of judicial review only when the following requisites are present: first. there must be an actual case or controversy. the exercise of emergency powers. She also relied on Section 17. and fourth. 58. May 27. third. G. Civil Aeronautics Board. 421 SCRA 21. This requires a delegation from Congress. supra. second. 357 SCRA 756). petitioners have to raise a question of unconstitutionality. the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity.R.

What are the tests of locus standi in the Philippines? The original was: [1] If the act involves the disbursement of public funds. 633. the United State Supreme Court laid down the more stringent “direct injury” test in Ex Parte Levitt. Ullman. G. he is but the mere instrument of the public concern However. No. Silk. In the former. 125 (1951). while in the latter. to prevent just about any person from seeking judicial interference in any official policy or act with which he disagreed with. he must show that he has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action.24 fourth. 159085.. 941. Locus standi is defined as “a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question. G. 302 U.S. 134855. 446. Warner Barnes & Co.R.. G. 435 SCRA 98. No. Commission on Elections. as amended.R. 88 Phil.S. and thus hinders the activities of governmental agencies engaged in public service. July 23. only those who are “directly injured” by the said law or contract entered into by the government. p. 1991. 275 Ky 91. February 3.R. the plaintiff’s standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. 22 23 24 25 26 Black’s Law Dictionary. Salonga v. the “real-party-in interest” is “the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. 120 SW2d 765 (1938). [2] If it does not involve disbursement of public funds. July 2. ) 60. 383 SCRA 577. 6th Ed. The distinction was first laid down in Beauchamp v. the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds.” Accordingly. 163302. 61. Guingona.”22 In private suits. Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Acop v. 318 U. Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both “citizen” and “taxpayer” standing in public actions.24 where it was held that the plaintiff in a taxpayer’s suit is in a different category from the plaintiff in a citizen’s suit. It provides that “ every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest . Executive Secretary. 2002. the case is capable of repetition yet evading review (Albaña v. Sanlakas v.25 later reaffirmed in Tileston v. Define locus standi. Jr.”23 Succinctly put. standing is governed by the “realparties-in interest” rule as contained in Section 2. 421 SCRA 656. 2004. No.26 The same Court ruled that for a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of an executive or legislative action. . and it is not sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of the public. mere taxpayer has the capacity to sue and question such act. 2004.

1985. No. 78742. where the Court held that objections to taxpayers’ lack of personality to sue may be disregarded in determining the validity of the VAT law. Tuvera . 175 SCRA 343.28 Manila Race Horse Trainers’ Association v. 1991. if we must. July 14. 77 Phil.32 where the “transcendental importance” of the cases prompted the Court to act liberally. 56 (1937). 1012 (1947). G. No. Sec. Comelec. in determining the validity of the implementation of the CARP. regulations and rulings. brushing aside technicalities of procedures.R. 1945 (Unreported). v. G. 1989. De Guia v. Macaraig. In Aquino v. 84 Phil.R. 197 SCRA 771. 331 (1960). such as. No. President of the Senate. January 31. 87636. Inc. Indeed. Maceda v.27 it held that the person who impugns the validity of a statute must have “a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained. June 30. No. Jr. May 29. 117. the people are the real party in interest. Civil Service Commission . of Agrarian Reform. 1975. 1992. as the issues involved. allowing ordinary citizens. has the personality to file the instant petition. 100308. 104712.R. the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. the “transcendental importance” to the public of the cases involved demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. 81311. 368 (1949) The Court held: “Above all. July 11. No. 40004. there is a chain of cases where this liberal policy has been observed. 175 SCRA 264.” The Vera doctrine was upheld in a litany of cases. November 7.. 2947. where the Court ruled that while petitioners are strictly speaking. technicalities of procedure. Reyes. 208 SCRA 420. November 19. 1991. the Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners have failed to show direct injury.R. v. where the Court held that the importance of the issues involved concerning as it does the political exercise of qualified voters affected by the apportionment. public interest was definitely involved and this clothed petitioner with the legal personality under the disclosure provision of the Constitution to question it. Albano v.31 However.” L-No. they have been allowed to sue under the principle of “transcendental importance. Tañada v. G. Inc. being a mere procedural technicality. not covered by the definition of a “proper party. 136 SCRA 27.R. where the Court held that it enjoys the open discretion to entertain taxpayer’s suit or not and that a member of the Senate has the requisite personality to bring a suit where a constitutional issue is raised. pertains to illegal expenditure of public money. This was done in the 1949 Emergency Powers Cases. G. May 31. July 30. Jr . 163 SCRA 371. Macaraig. Gonzales v. 110 Phil. G.34 Thus. G. 1990. and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws. or will sustain direct injury as a result . where the Court held that where the question is one of public duty and the enforcement of a public right. May 6. No. No.100420. where the Court held that where serious constitutional questions are involved.R. Custodio v.R.33 this Court resolved to pass upon the issues raised due to the “far-reaching implications” of the petition notwithstanding its categorical statement that petitioner therein had no personality to file the suit. the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere fact that the petitioner is a citizen and part of the general public which possesses the right. 33 34 . 1988. it has the discretion to waive the requirement. In People v. No. January 11. Vera.R. nonetheless considering its important role in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved. L. 191 SCRA 452. and it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen interested in the execution of the law. 83551.25 This Court adopted the “direct injury” test in our jurisdiction. Araneta v. G. 88291. De la Fuente. Legaspi v. 100318. April 24. Osmeña v. 72119. 100417. Secretary of Public Works 30 and Anti-Chinese League of the Philippines v. where the Court held that petitioner as a taxpayer. Felix. Comelec .R. 63915. 1959 (Unreported). No. where the Court held that in cases involving an assertion of a public right. members of Congress. necessitates the brushing aside of the procedural requirement of locus standi. Comelec . Dinglasan. Tan .” Pertinent are the following cases: 27 28 29 30 31 32 65 Phil. Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas. G. 1989. brushing aside.” nonetheless. where the Court held that while no expenditure of public funds was involved under the questioned contract. 62 SCRA 275. the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion.R..29 Pascual v. Such liberality was neither a rarity nor accidental. G. 1987. No. Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines. 150 SCRA 530. G. 199 SCRA 750. No.

and legislators may be accorded standing to sue. 151445. April 11. recent decisions show a certain toughening in the Court’s attitude toward legal standing. Public Estates Authority. G. Nos. July 9. the cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing requirements may be relaxed. Zamora. there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question. voters. concerned citizens. Zamora. 380 SCRA 739. 4.R.37 while the Court noted that the petitioners may not file suit in their capacity as taxpayers absent a showing that “Balikatan 02-01” involves the exercise of Congress’ taxing or spending powers. 133250. .38 that in cases of transcendental importance. the following rules may be culled from the cases decided by this Court. By way of summary. 138680. and for legislators.R. No. 138572. for voters. the cases involve constitutional issues.36 wherein the Court held that “given the transcendental importance of the issues involved. 384 SCRA 152. there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. 138587. 35 36 37 G. for taxpayers.26 (1) Chavez v. there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early. 2. the Court may relax the standing requirements and allow the suit to prosper despite the lack of direct injury to the parties seeking judicial review” of the Visiting Forces Agreement. Taxpayers. 38 Supra. 2002. (3) Lim v. Executive Secretary . (2) Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v.35 where the Court ruled that the enforcement of the constitutional right to information and the equitable diffusion of natural resources are matters of transcendental importance which clothe the petitioner with locus standi. 3. Significantly. it reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. 5. 138698. provided that the following requirements are met: 1. 342 SCRA 449. for concerned citizens. No.R. G. 2000. 2002. 138570. there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional. October 10.

357 SCRA 756. when the public interest so requires. more so where it does not raise any issue of constitutionality. G. Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP). It held that “there must be a showing that the citizen personally suffered some actual or threatened injury arising from the alleged illegal official act. as they claim that the President’s declaration of a state of rebellion is a usurpation of the emergency powers of Congress.R. 1998. May 10. is not a real party-in-interest as it had not demonstrated any injury to itself or to its leaders. without legislation. 118910. While the President alone can declare a state of national emergency. Perez. Inc. 2001. G. without legislation. No. 421 SCRA 656. equating them with the LDP in Lacson. Nor can it sue as a concerned citizen as it does not allege any specific injury it has suffered. 147780. . Article XII . Moreover. 159085. In Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines. 132922. and Social Justice Society. the President has no power to point out the types of businesses affected with public interest 39 40 41 42 G. In Sanlakas v. In times of national emergency. Morato. however. the State may. February 3.27 In Kilosbayan. v. Partido Manggagawa. What is the “take over” provision of the Constitution.R. members or supporters. 1995. 289 SCRA 337. 147810. v. which reads: Sec. May the President validly exercise the same? This is Section 17. 17.39 the Court ruled that the status of Kilosbayan as a people’s organization does not give it the requisite personality to question the validity of the on-line lottery contract.R.41 the Court ruled that one of the petitioners. April 21. The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. the Court declared them to be devoid of standing.42 the Court ruled that only the petitioners who are members of Congress have standing to sue. As to petitioners Sanlakas.40 the Court reiterated the “direct injury” test with respect to concerned citizens’ cases involving constitutional issues. Likewise. 62. November 16.” In Lacson v. temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. thus impairing their legislative powers . Comelec. No. No. 2004. 147781. it cannot sue as a taxpayer absent any allegation that public funds are being misused. G. 147799. Nor can he determine when such exceptional circumstances have ceased. 250 SCRA 130. he has no power to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. Executive Secretary. during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it.R. No. Inc.

Art. vs. 79. 71 S. 62 N. State vs. VII and Section 5. Article VII in the absence of an emergency powers act passed by Congress. 82 Phil. Article VII." and it "in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence" article 36. Eby. 642. because the courts take no notice thereof. 35 S. it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense. 497. 402. Burdick vs United States.) [4] Pardon is complete with the act of the President while Amnesty is valid only with the concurrence of the majority of the members of all the members of Congress.S.C. Ct. FERNANDEZ. 47 S. Blalock. unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.. while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress. As held in BARRIOQUINTO VS.. ed. 296. [3] Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted. N. and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. while amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself. 242. 236 U. Revised Penal Code).C.. 63. 35 GA.28 that should be taken over. IX-C)) 64... and for that reason it does ""nor work the restoration of the rights to hold public office. 267. 403.Y. it abolished or forgives the punishment. (section 10[6]. State ex rel AnheuserBusch Brewing Ass'n. the distinctions are as follows: [1] Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned. 59 Law. 271.W 52. In short. (Section 19. the President has no absolute authority to exercise all the powers of the State under Section 17. Ex parte Law. 476. while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses. 285. or the right of suffrage.. 247. 170 Mo. 118. Art. [2] Pardon is granted to one after conviction (of ordinary crimes) .E. In re Briggs. rules and regulations without the favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections. Philippine Constitution. What are the limitations of the President’s power of executive clemency? The same is not available in cases of impeachment as well as violation of election laws. 135 N.. Distinguish pardon from amnesty. generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction.. .. that is. 61.

Is it required for the person applying for amnesty to admit his guilt before his amnesty application be considered? Ye. The word “conviction in Section 19. 1991. entitled to automatic reinstatement to her former position without need of a New appointment? No. May the power of executive clemency applied to administrative cases like the suspension of a Provincial Governor? Yes. and no satisfaction for it can be required. "Since the offense has been established by judicial proceedings. May a public officer. As held in MONSANTO VS. cannot be entitled to reinstatement. receive backpay for lost earnings and benefits. Is the mere filing of a criminal case against a recipient of a conditional pardon with the condition "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines and this condition be violated. Director of Prisons. It makes no amends for the past." This would explain why petitioner.February. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Llamas vs. This rule abandoned the contrary ruling in Barrioquinto vs. 7 SCRA 152. unless appointed again by the appointing authority. It is not retrospective. that which has been done or suffered while they were in force is presumed to have been rightfully done and justly suffered. Art. 67. PEOPLE. in accepting the terms under which the parole had been granted. VII of the Constitution may be used either in a criminal case or in an administrative case. the determination of whether the conditions of a convict’s pardon had been breached rests exclusively in the sound judgment of the President and that such determination would not be reviewed by the courts. Oct. 66. Sec. 1989. he will be proceeded against in the manner prescribed by law" sufficient to revoke such conditional pardon without first securing conviction against the grantee? Yes. a pardon looks to the future. It does not impose upon the government any obligation to make reparation for what has been suffered. though pardoned. It affords no relief for what has been suffered by the offender. Exec. 152 SCRA 272. Tesoro had in effect agreed that the Governor-General's determination (rather than that of the regular courts of law) that he had . Before one may validly apply for executive clemency (pardon or amnesty) he MUST ADMIT HAVING COMMITTED THE ACTS WHICH RESULTED IN HIS IMPRISONMENT. GONZALES. Orbos. FACTORAN. 68.s as held in VERA VS.29 65. As held in TORRES VS. 15. Fernandez. who has been granted an absolute pardon by the Chief Executive. As held in Tesoro vs.

30 breached one of the conditions of his parole by committing adultery while he was conditionally at liberty. . b. 71. subject to such limitations as may be provided for by law. expediency and wisdom of a particuar act. What are the requisites before the President or his representatives may validly contract or guarantee foreign loans? Under Section 20. the Monetary Board shall. What is judicial power? Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. What is a political question? In ALMARIO VS. the matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. VI of the Constitution provides that the HRET is the “sole judge” of all contestests involving the election. there must be prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. 73 SCRA 333. VII. returns and qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives? Yes if there is allegation of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the HRET (BONDOC VS. the President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines subject to the following conditions: a. Art. it was defined as a question which deals with the necessity. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act. the same is political and not justiciable In Sanidad vs. and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. May judicial power be exercised by the Supreme Court in cases of decisions of the House of Representatives Electoral tribunal since Section 16. and containing other matters as may be provided for by law. 69. was binding and conclusive upon him. submit to the Congress a complete report of its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or guaranteed by the government or government owned and controlled corporations which would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt. Art. Further. not the legality of a particular act. ALBA. 70. within 30 days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year. 127 SCRA 6. political questions was defined as questions which are neatly associated with the wisdom. PINEDA) 72. Comelec.

What are the powers of the Supreme Court? As enumerated in Art. At. instructions. 74. the judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy and as such appropriations for the judiciary may not be reduced by the legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous year and. reverse. or operation of presidential decrees. Finally. ordinances. no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc. dismissal of judges and disbarment of lawyers are also decided by the Supreme Court en banc. which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc. when the crux of the problem deals with the wisdom of an act. What is the extent of the fiscal autonomy granted to the judiciary under the 1987 Constitution? As provided under Section 3. Cases referred to by the division to the banc involving novel questions of law . the same shall be resolved by the Supreme Court en banc. t he Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors. the same shall be decided by the en banc accepted by the latter. Or in Gonzales vs. and habeas corpus. or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. orders. prohibition. What are the cases to be decided by the Supreme Court en banc? All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. final judgments and orders of lower courts in: . quo warranto. other public ministers and consuls. and over petitions for certiorari. after approval. 73. mandamus. Also. Cuenco. 21 SCRA 774 . it is political). including those involving the constitutionality. Also if two (2) divisions of the Supreme Court have conflicting decisions. international or executive agreement.. and other regulations. COMELEC. application. revise. Section 5. proclamations. political question was defined as questions to be answered by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority is vested to the executive or legislative branch of the government. 103 Phil. shall be automatically and regularly released. VIII. shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. 75. modify. (2) Review. or law.31 In Tanada vs. VIII.

proclamation. or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. the Integrated Bar. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the civil service law. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. and shall not diminish. instruction. impost. Art. law. presidential decree.32 (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned. 76. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasijudicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. increase or modify substantive rights. international or executive agreement. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require. (Section 5 (5). assessment. What are the 3-fold Functions of Judicial Review? These are the: 1) legitimizing function 2) checking function 3) symbolic or educational function . the admission to the practice of law. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. What is the “writ of amparo”? It is a writ issued by the courts for the protection and enforcement of the constitutional rights of a person under detention. and procedure in all courts. (d)All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. (b)All cases involving the legality of any tax. order. ordinance. practice . VIII) 77. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. pleading . or toll. or regulation is in question.

552 and ENDENCIA VS. unconstitutional) in the light of the requirements of Section 4(2) of Article VIII that not even any of the Supreme Court’s three (3) divisions. treaty. (YNOT VS. treaty. as shown by Section 5 [2] (a). integrity. VIII). DAVID. COMMISSIONER. May an RTC Judge be appointed as a member of the Provincial Peace and Order Council of the place where he holds office? .. valid and binding. etc. IAC. 38 SCRA 429) 80. VIII provides that the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower court shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Art.33 78. 85 Phil. 696 82. As such. What are the qualities of one aspiring to become a member of the judiciary aside from the citizenship and age qualifications? A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence. PNB. etc. What is the “operative fact doctrine”? It simply means that the declaration of unconstitutionality of a law. probity and independence. Article VIII which would have the effect of decreasing the same? No. 81. is prospective. 83. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. Under the 1987 Constitution.. or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon. 1987) 79. Art. March 20. may the salaries of the members of the judiciary be taxed without violating Section 10. Likewise. sitting separately could not declare a law. treaty. May inferior courts also exercise the power of judicial review (declaring a law. (DE AGBAYANI VS. the decision of lower courts declaring a law unconstitutional is subject to review by the Supreme Court. It is only the declaration of unconstitutionality which is the “operative fact” which would stop the people from complying with its provisions. etc. 152 SCRA 284 which abandoned the contrary rulings in the cases of PERFECTO VS. unconstitutional? Yes because the power of judicial review is just a part of judicial power which is available to all courts (Section 1. 93 Phil. all acts done in connection with the said law before its declaration of unconstitutionality shall be considered legal. This was the ruling in NITAFAN VS. MEER. Up to when are members of the judiciary entitled to hold on to their positions? Section 11.

12 months for all lower collegiate courts. 112 SCRA 273. CRUZ. COMELEC. 121 SCRA 205. subdivisions. 121 SCRA 51 and DE ROMA VS. CA. NLRC. INCIONG.34 No. 18 SCRA 155 . 117 SCRA 435. MALACORA VS. the civil service embraces all branches. What are the periods given to the different courts to decide cases before them? Under Section 15. 88. and unless reduced by the Supreme Court. NAPOLCOM VS. 169 SCRA 356 and Mangelen vs. VALLADOLID VS. instrumentalities. CA 98 SCRA 424. Art. CA. LOOD. The members of the Supreme Court and other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions. including government owned and controlled corporations WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS. NUNAL VS. and 3 months for all other lower courts. MILITARY COMMISSIONS) bound by the requirement of Section 14. 86. Are the different administrative and quasi-judicial bodies (COMELEC. 152 SCRA 205) 87. What are the requirements before one may be appointed in the civil service? Exceptions? . Art. ENRILE. 215 SCRA 230) 85. Art. Is the requirement under Section 15. (AIR FRANCE VS. NAPOLCOM. Article IX-B of the Constitution. 102 SCRA 7 . CARRASCOSO. A case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading. VIII that “No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based”? No. VIII mandatory or merely directory? Section 15. MARCELINO VS. Art. VDA DE ESPIRITU VS. This is so because it is “impossible” for the Supreme Court to comply with such provision considering the volume of cases filed before it. CA. BUSCAYNO VS. VIII. (CORPUS VS. 47 SCRA 354 . brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. It applies only to the courts as defined or included by Section 1. 127 SCRA 75. Art. (IN RE: JUDGE RODOLFO MANZANO. CA. and agencies of the government. October 5. 1988) 84. VIII is mandatory in all courts except the Supreme Court where said provision is considered merely directory. VIII. all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within 24 months from date of submission for the Supreme Court. MANGCA VS. CFI. What are covered by the powers of the Civil Service Commission? Under Section 2.

by competitive examination. MALLARE. What is important is that the appointee meets all the qualifications for the said position. such as that head of a department. What is the extent of the powers of the CSC in appointment cases? It has only the power to approve the appointment if the appointee meets all the qualifications and the power to deny the appointment if the appointee does not meet the qualifications. 93.” (DE LOS SANTOS VS. Is the position of City Engineer of Baguio City a “highly technical” position? No. Is the position of City or Provincial Legal Officer a primarily confidential position? . there is no need “to wait for the deadwoods to retire” before one may be promoted to fill-up a vacancy as a result of the presence of other employees with longer years of service or “next-in-rank”. CSC. primarily confidential or highly technical . Is there such a thing as “next-in-rank” or seniority rule in filling up vacancies in the classified civil service? No.35 Appointments in the CS shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable. 89. As held in Medenilla vs. 87 Phil. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SUBSTITUTE THE APPOINTEE CHOSEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WITH ANOTHER WHICH IT BELIEVES TO BE MORE QUALIFIED. February 19. PNB. The position of City Engineer of Baguio City is technical “but not highly so. 92. 33 SCRA 330) Highly technical position requires the appointee thereto to possess technical skill or training in the supreme or superior degree. Define the three (3) exceptions to the rule that the appointee must be chosen based on merit and fitness to be determined by competitive examination? Policy determining is one charged with laying down of principal or fundamental guidelines or rules. 289) 91. and except as to positions which are policy determining. Primarily confidential position is one denoting not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the office but primarily close intimacy which ensures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgivings or betrayals of the personal trust on confidential matters of the state (Example: Chief Legal Counsel of the PNB. 1991. 90. Besa vs.

Romualdez vs. June 1. October 3. 1988 . WORKERS VS. 1991. employees to form unions. its powers are to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election. including the AFP.” There must be full compliance of the due process requirement. 1993 and Torio vs. May government employees be removed without cause as a result of a government reorganization? No. 1991) 97. 1987. MENDOZA VS. employees form unions for purposes of collective bargaining and to strike against the government? As held in ALLIANCE OF GOVT. Dec. This is clear from RA 6656. MISON. 94. Deputize law enforcement agencies. 124 SCRA and Executive Order No. returns. plebiscite. provincial and city officials and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by courts of general jurisdiction and elective barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. initiative. 142 SCRA 280.original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections. b. QUISUMBING. government employees may form unions but not authorized to strike or demand for collective bargaining agreement with the government. 1990. August 12. which is “An act to protect the security of tenure of civil service officers and employees in the implementation of government reorganization. Art. 1990. CSC. June 10. Register political parties. Also. It must be based on just cause and with due process.. the Provincial Legal Officer is a primarily confidential office. What are the more important powers of the COMELEC? Under Section 2. File complaints for violation of election laws . DOTC vs. authorizing govt. FLOREZA VS. 1989. May gov't. SANTOS. but not his assistant. MOLE. CSC. June 4. IX-C provides that “ In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. and qualifications of all elective regional. referendum and recall…. ONGPIN. “)Brillantes vs. May a person be appointed in a temporary capacity as a Commissioner of the Commission on Elections? No. Yorac. 145 SCRA where it was held that The City Legal officer is a primarily confidential officer. The same was reiterated in SAMSON VS. Section 1.36 Yes. as held in CADIENTE VS. except religious groups c. 209 SCRA 677) 96. it has the power to: a. 180 .( DARIO VS. IX-C. February 26. CA. Art. 95. August 8. CSC. 18.

Those involving barangay officials shall be filed with the MTC whose decision is likewise subject to appeal to the COMELEC whose decision in both instances is final and not appealable. 101. The intent to remain in the new domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time. it was held that to validly effect a change of residence. media of communication. G. (BENJAMIN BORJA VS. ET AL. automatic release of funds of Local Government Units. and JOSE T. Does the President have discretion on the release of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for the Local Government Service Equalization Fund (LGSEF) and may she validly impose conditions for the release thereof? No. Is the 3-term limit of elected local officials applicable to a term acquired through succession? No. particularly the IRA. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of PROVINCE OF BATANGAS VS. To allow the President to impose conditions for the release of the IRA amounts to control to local government units when the President’s power over local government units is confined to general supervision. must be voluntary and the residence at the new domicile must be actual. not by succession. Where must election cases involving city and provincial officials be filed? It must be filed with the COMELEC. 99. ALBERTO ROMULO. 102. COMELEC. What are the requirements for a valid change of residence for purposes of the requirement on “residence” under the Local Government Code? In the case of DUMPIT-MICHELENA VS. CAPCO. Regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises for the operation of transportation and other public utilities.R.37 d. Lim.. No. 2004. 98. 235 SCRA 135. local governments have fiscal autonomy under Art. 133495. 1998) . HON. is mandated with no conditions imposed for its release. there must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. not power of control as enunciated in Drilon vs. 100. May 27. not with the courts. September 3. COMELEC. JR. the 3-term limit applies only if the official was DULY ELECTED to the said position for three (3) consecutive terms. X of the 1987 Constitution. Which court has jurisdiction over election cases involving municipal and barangay officials? Election cases involving municipal official shall be filed before the RTC whose decision may be appealed to the COMELEC...

merged or abolished. an impeachment complaint deemed “initiated” to be a bar to the filing of another complaint within a 1year period upon its [a] filing. 128 SCRA 6 and LOPEZ VS. In the creation of a new province. ( TAN VS. METRO MANILA COMMISSION.” 107. What are the grounds for impeachment? Only for “Culpable violation of the constitution. ET AL.e. graft and corruption. 105. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. November 10.. 214 SCRA 735 abandoning the doctrines in PAREDES VS. 415 SCRA 44. COMELEC. city. 149 SCRA 281) 108. or betrayal of public trust”. 106. or its boundary substantially altered. must participate in the plebiscite. What is the extent of a judgment in impeachment cases? Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any other office under the Republic of the Philippines but shall nevertheless be liable to prosecution. SPEAKER JOSE DE VENECIA. professors and the students because the provision states that “Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning” while under the 1973 Constitution. treason. other high crimes. Who investigates and prosecutes public officials for crimes committed in the performance of their official duties? Exception It is the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor except if the offense is in violation of election laws. 142 SCRA 727 and Padilla vs. Tanodbayan. and [b] COUPLED WITH CONGRESS TAKING INITIAL ACTION OF SAID COMPLAINT. former and new local government unit to be formed. What is covered by the “academic freedom” provision of the 1987 Constitution? It covers not only academic freedom on the part of the school but also those of the teachers. i. municipality or barangay or when it will be divided. who shall vote in the plebiscite to be conducted? All the residents of the political units affected. only institutions of higher learning enjoy academic freedom because the provision then states that “all . 136 SCRA 633) 104. COMELEC. rules and regulations wherein only the COMELEC has the power to investigate and to file the appropriate information in court. When is an impeachment complaint deemed “initiated” to bar another complaint within a period of one year? As held in FRANCISCO VS.38 103. (Corpuz vs. bribery. trial and punishment according to law. 2003.

August 31. how it shall be taught. 112 SCRA 26) This rule was reiterated in the cased of DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VS. 491. they are not allowed to enroll at the De La sale but they should be given transfer credentials so that they may enroll in another school. ( ANGELES VS. “academic Freedom includes the power of a University to REVOKE a degree or honor it has conferred to a student after it was found out that the student’s graduation was obtained through fraud. b.39 institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom (Art. SISON. What is the extent of academic freedom on the part of schools? It includes the power to determine: a. who may teach. c. 1999. citing Sinco. (1962) and the concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Sweezy v. however. FACULTY ADMISSION. while conceding the power of the school over its students held that the penalty of expulsion is too harsh a penalty. What are the underlying principles behind the constitutional proscription that the State cannot be sued without its consent? By reason of public policy (if every citizen is allowed to sue the government. It should be EXCLUSION.) and by reason of consent (when the people ratified the . it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates. CA (2008) where a rumble between two fraternities took place outside the school campus but the students involved were EXPELLED by the school. New Hampshire (354 US 234 [1957]. Philippine Political Law. May a school punish its students for illegal acts committed outside the school premises and beyond school hours but within the semester where they are enrolled? Yes because they still carry the name of the school and their actuations affect the reputation of the school. Academic freedom is given a wide sphere of authority. Section 8 [1]. meaning. 111. 1973 Constitution. it will be distracted from performing its functions to serve the people and it will be left just answering cases in court). As held in UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS. XV. Does academic freedom on the part of the school carries with it the power to revoke a degree or honor it has bestowed to its students? Yes.” 109. If an institution of higher learning can decide on who can and cannot study in it. 112. 68 SCRA 277). 110. and who may be admitted to study"' (Emphasis supplied. by reason of sovereignty (the people shall not be allowed to sue the very entity that gives it said right. what may be taught. The Supreme Court. d. GARCIA VS. CA.

85 SCRA 599) 117. Also. REPUBLIC. FONTANILLA. because the government shall not enrich itself at the expense of its citizens. et al. it has consented or waived said right to sue). How may the State gives its consent to be sued? Expressly when there is a law allowing it and impliedly when it enters into a contract with an individual because in the latter. (TORIO VS. CFI OF BULACAN. 110 SCRA 456). VS. the government is not allowed to invoke its immunity from suit if by doing so. it cannot be sued. May a municipality be held liable for damages as a result of the death of a person arising from the collapse of a stage constructed by the local government in connection with its town fiesta? No. 116. CFI of Cebu. 114. 87 SCRA 294) 115. RUIZ. Are local governments also entitled to invoke immunity from suit? Yes.V. 117. a town fiesta I a business or proprietary function since no law requires any town..S. it will be causing an injustice to its citizens. 136 SCRA where it was held that even if there is a contract entered into by the US Government but the same involves its “jusre imperii” functions (governmental functions”. This was the ruling in U. 113. 475 SCRA 218) . (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH VS. (MINISTERIO VS. 40 SCRA and SANTIAGO VS. (RAYO VS.40 Constitution which includes the provision that the State cannot be sued without its consent. Is the US Government also immune from suit in the Philippines in connection with the exercise of its governmental functions? Yes. It is only when the contract involves its “jus gestiones” or business or proprietary functions that it may be sued. city. C. May the government still be held liable to a private individual if the contract it entered into is void but the other party had already complied with his obligations under said agreement? Yes. May the government be sued in the exercise of its governmental functions? Yes if the government agency has a charter which allows it to be sued. it descended to the level of an individual making it susceptible to counterclaims or suits. CANCHELA. province or barangay to hold an annual fiesta.

What are the basic purposes/aspects of police power: a. DECS VS. (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. to promote the general welfare. (ICHONG VS. Distinguish police power with power of eminent domain. ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. ordain. to maintain and safeguard peace and order. 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT].41 PART 2---CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY 1. ( ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. (VILLANUEVA VS. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH. July 31. 1987. 175 SCRA 343. TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. to promote the economic security of the people. JMM PROMOTIONS VS. TORIBIO. CITY MAYOR. 88 SCRA 195. The distinctions are: 1. (AGUSTIN VS. The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to condemn or to take private property for public use upon payment of just compensation while police power is the power of the state to promote public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property without compensation. PARAS. 85 b. CITY MAYOR. 1983) f. EDU. 2. to promote and protect public safety. February 13. VELASCO VS. 595—apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium) c. In the exercise of police power. 101 Phil. enjoyment of a property is restricted because the continued use thereof would be . 123 SCRA 569. to promote and preserve public health. CASTANEDA. (GUAZON VS. (DE LA CRUZ VS. September 21. 260 SCRA 319. VILLEGAS. to protect public morals. HERNANDEZ. CA. Define police power. 11155) 3. US VS. comfort and convenience of the people. 119 SCRA 897 ) d. JUINIO. SECRETARY. 15 Phil. LORENZO VS. 1967) 2. SAN DIEGO. 50 Phil. DE VILLA) e. It is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make. 1967. establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its people. July 31.

which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial (Per Daniel Webster in the DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE) 6. there is no compensable taking provided none of the property interests is appropriated for the use or for the benefit of the public. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property subject of the proceedings. in the exercise of police power. health and prosperity of the state. What are the Kinds of Due Process? a. (LAWFUL MEANS). the means employed is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive to individuals. ELISEA GOZU. The requisites are: 1. What are the requisites of “judicial due process”? As held in BANCO ESPANOL VS. In short. (DIDIPIO EARTH SAVERS MULTI PURPOSE ASSOCIATION VS. 7.. require the exercise of police power. Procedural due process---one which hears before it condemns. substantive due process---requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to life. . or the procedure as pointed out by Daniel Webster. no compensation shall be paid. 921. b. 37 Phil. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the matter before it. 2. liberty or property. 5. Likewise. not mere particular class. In short. hence . Properties condemned under police power are usually noxious or intended for noxious purpose. there should be compensable taking if it would result to public use. Otherwise. the end does not justify the means. 3. Define due process. 485 SCRA 586) 4. What are the tests for a valid exercise of police power a. it is to determine whether it has a valid governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere particular class. property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort. Due process is a law which hears before it condemns. PALANCA. DENR SEC. ET AL.42 injurious to public welfare. the interests of the public. (LAWFUL SUBJECT) b. In such case.

5. 9. CIR. the evidence must be substantial. the tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration of the law or facts. What are the requisites of procedural due process in disciplinary actions against students? As held in GUZMAN VS. (DELGADO VS. . the decision must be based on the evidence presented during the hearing.43 3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing. the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. 635. 142 SCRA 706. they shall have the right to answer the charges against them. 3. f. If an accused was represented by a non-lawyer during the trial of his criminal case. 4. g. e. b. the right to a hearing which includes the right to present evidence. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf. with the assistance of counsel. c. his right to due process was violated and therefore entitled to a new trial. the board or body shall in all controversial questions. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard. the decision must have something to support itself. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them. render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceedings can know the various issues involved. 69 Phil. the requisites are: 1. 1986) 10. what right of the said accused was violated? Is he entitled to a new trial? If an accused was represented by a non-lawyer during the trial (though he thought that he was a lawyer). 2. NU. d. the requisites are: a. What are the requisites of due process before administrative bodies? As held in TIBAY VS. CA. 4. November 10. 8.

c. the Supreme Court held that the fact that policemen charged with a criminal offense punishable by more than 6 years are to be suspended during the entire duration of the case unlike other government employees is valid since it rests on valid classification because policemen carry weapons and the badge of the law which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them. Hearing 12. which provides that a respondent in an administrative case should be assisted by counsel in order that the proceedings therein is considered valid. 15. PEOPLE. It must not be limited to existing conditions only. Is there violation of the equal protection clause if policemen who are charged of a criminal offense punishable for more than six (6) years will remain suspended until after the his acquittal unlike other public officers whose maximum suspension even when facing graft and corrupt charges is only three (3) months? No there is o violation. 68 Phil. Not only. In HIMAGAN VS. What are the requisites for a valid classification? As held in People vs. What are the requisites of due process before an employee may be dismissed from his work? The requisites of Due Process before the NLRC are: 1. b. There must be real and substantial distinctions. petitioner herein was given the opportunity several times to engage the services of a lawyer to assist him but he confidently informed the investigators that he could protect himself. 12. whether the Civil Service Act or the Administrative Code of 1987. and 2. (LUMIQUED VS. and It must apply equally to all members of the same class. It must be germane tot he purposes of the law. d. EXENEA. that. What are the requisites of a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest? No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the . Is due process satisfied in administrative proceedings if the respondent is not assisted by counsel? There is no law. Cayat. Notice.44 11. 14. 282 SCRA 125) 13. the requisites are: a.

Finally. present him or her before any judge at the latter’s residence or office nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night. notwithstanding. having been duly authorized in writing by the AntiTerrorism Council has taken custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall. among other things. Rule 126 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure requires that no warrant shall be issued for more than one (1) specific offense and that in the implementation of a search warrant when the respondent is not present. or law enforcement personnel: Provided. to ascertain the identity of the police or law . who. It shall be the duty of the judge. NOTE: Under the Human Security Act/AntiTerrorism Law. and taken into custody by the said police. a Circular issued by the Supreme Court requires that no warrant or warrant of arrest shall be implemented during the night. Art. Period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest. Sec. The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall. except in exceptional circumstances. detained.. WITHOUT INCURRING ANY CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. 2007 and effective on July 15. III) In addition. witnesses are required. That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the surveillance under Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 pf this Act. 2007 (This Law shall be automatically suspended one (1) month before and two (2) months after the holding of any election) a person may be taken into custody by the police if there is a written authorization by the Anti-Terrorism Council and such detention may be extended upon written approval of the Commission of Human Rights in case of actual or imminent terrorist attack.The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. (Section 2. Approved on March 6. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. before detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism. Republic Act No. 18. DELIVER SAID CHARGED OR SUSPECTED PERSON TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITY WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE (3) DAYS counted from the moment said charged or suspected person has been apprehended or arrested. week-ends or holidays. any police or law enforcement personnel. 9372.45 witnesses he may produce.

. shall be released immediately. Sundays or holidays. regional trial court. holidays or after office hours. The approval in writing of any of the said officials shall be secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned within five days after the date of the detention of the persons concerned. Section 19.46 enforcement personnel and the person or persons they have arrested and presented before him or her. Provided. 16. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. the arresting police of law enforcement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residence of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place where the accused was arrested.. provided. the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested. are the things seized admissible in evidence? . The judge shall then submit a written report of what he/she had observed when the subject was brought before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction over the case of the person thus arrested. suspects may not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a municipal. The penalty of 10 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement personnel who fails to notify any judge as provided in the preceding paragraph. or after office hours.In the vent of an actual or imminent terrorist attack. The judge shall forthwith submit his report within 3 calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or office. to inquire of them the reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by questioning and personal observation whether or not the subject has been subjected to any physical. In case the place to be searched as indicated in the search warrant is erroneous because it is different from the place mentioned by the applicants who searched the place indicated by them in their affidavit. the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of arrest. city. moral or psychological torture by whom and why. Sundays. or judge of the municipal. That where the arrest is made during Saturdays. Period of Detention in the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack. If the arrest is made during Saturdays. provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission. the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest. however. That within three days after the detention the suspects whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not established.

47

No. As held in PEOPLE VS. CA, 291 SCRA 400, WHAT IS MATERIAL IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A SEARCH IS THE PLACE STATED IN THE WARRANT ITSELF, NOT WHAT THE APPLICANTS HAD IN THEIR THOUGHTS, OR HAD REPRESENTED IN THE PROOFS THEY SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ISSUING THE WARRANT. 17. What are the different instances when a warrantless search and seizure is allowed under our existing jurisprudence? Warrantless search is allowed in the following instances: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. customs searches; searches of moving vehicle; seizure of evidence in plain view; consented searches; search incidental to a lawful arrest; and stop and frisk measures. (PEOPLE VS. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626)

18. May a judge deputize his Clerk of Court to take the deposition of the applicant for a search warrant subject to clarificatory questions after his hearing in other cases? No. As held in Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, the examination of the complainant ant the witnesses he may produce must be done personally by the judge. Otherwise, the warrant shall be void. As such, the SC held in PENDON VS. CA, November 16, 1990 that when the questions asked to the applicant for a search warrant was pre-typed, the same is not valid since there could have been no searching questions. 19. May a search warrant be issued for the crimes of search warrant for estafa, falsification, tax evasion and insurance fraud? No, such would be a “general warrant” and violates the rule that a warrant shall be issued for one (1) specific offense. (Asian Surety vs. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312) 20. What is a “scatter-shot warrant”? It is a search warrant issued for more than one (1) specific offense like a search warrant issued for more than one specific offense like one for estafa, robbery, theft and qualified theft”. (TAMBASEN VS. PEOPLE, July 14, 1995; PEOPLE VS. CA, 216 SCRA 101) 21. May a judge validly issue a warrant of arrest based from the Information and the Resolution of the Prosecutor finding probable cause against the accused?

48

No. There will be no basis for the issuance since the Prosecutor is neither the complainant nor the witness to the case. He could not have determined probable cause based from the said documents. (VICENTE LIM,SR. AND MAYOR SUSANA LIM VS.HON. N. FELIX , G.R. NO. 99054-57). As held in the case of Soliven vs. Makasiar, decided under the 1987 Constitution, the Court noted that the addition of the word personally after the word determined and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Constitution to issue warrants to other respondent officers as to may be authorized by law does not require the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witness in his determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. Following established doctrine and procedures, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the reports and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; (2) If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal'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. The case of People vs. Honorable Enrique B. Inting reiterates the following doctrines: (1) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only the judge alone makes this detemination. (2) The preliminary inquiry made by the prosecutor does not bind the judge. It merely assist him to make the determination of probable cause. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor's present to him. By itself, the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stenographic notes, and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge to make his determination. (3) Preliminary inquiry should be distinguished from the preliminary investigation proper. While the former seeks to determine probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest, the latter ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. 22. As to the requirement that the judge must “personally” determine probable cause, must he examine the complainant and his witnesses face to face in order to comply with the said constitutional provision?

49

It depends. In connection with the issuance of a SEARCH WARRANT, he must personally examine the complainant and the witnesses, with searching questions, face to face. In connection with the issuance of a warrant of arrest, however, the word “personally” after the word determined does not necessarily mean that the judge should examine the complainant and his witnesses personally or face to face before issuing the warrant of arrest but the exclusive responsibility on the part of said judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. As such, there is no need to examine the complainant and his witnesses face to face. It is sufficient if the judge is convinced of the existence of probable cause upon reading the affidavits or deposition of the complainant and his witnesses. SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR, 167 SCRA 393 23. Is the judge bound by the findings of existence of “probable cause” by the Prosecutor as indicated in his Certification in the information so that the issuance of a warrant of arrest is only ministerial? If not satisfied of the existence of probable cause, may the judge require the Prosecutor to submit additional evidence? The judge is not bound by the findings of the Prosecutor because the said finding is only “probable cause” that a crime was committed. Probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest is a judicial function vested only in the judge. In fact, he can require the Prosecutor to submit additional evidence if he is not convinced of the existence of probable for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. (P. vs. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465; Placer vs. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463). 24. Is "Operation Kapkap" being done by the police because the suspect has something bulging in his waist and keeps on touching his abdomen as if touching a gun valid? As held in PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE, G.R. No. 87059, June, 1992, 210 SCRA 174, “OPERATION KAPKAP” or warrantless search without probable cause is unconstitutional. Such search is valid only if covered by Section 5, Article 113 of the Rules of Court which provides: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.- A peace officer or private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts

50

indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. Compare this case to MANALILI VS. PEOPLE, October 9, 1997. The policemen saw several suspicious looking men at dawn who ran when they went near them. As the policemen ran after them, an unlicensed firearm was confiscated. The search was declared valid by the Supreme Court. Note, however, that in MALACAT VS. CA, 283 SCRA 159, the SC held that mere suspicions not sufficient to validate warrantless arrest. 25. May the Iloilo Police arrests without warrant or search the person disembarking from a ship passenger without warrant based solely on an information relayed to them by an informant that the suspect’s bag contains marijuana? No. As held in PEOPLE vs. AMMINUIDIN, 163 SCRA 402 a warrantless arrest of the accused was unconstitutional. This was effected while he was coming down the vessel, to all appearances no less innocent than the other disembarking passengers. He had not committed nor was actually committing or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. He was not even acting suspiciously. In short, there was no probable cause that, as the prosecution incorrectly suggested, dispensed with the constitutional requirement of a warrant. 26. In arrests without warrant based on the fact that a crime has just been committed, what kind of knowledge is required on the part of the arresting officer? In PEOPLE VS. GALVEZ, 355 SCRA 246, the Supreme Court held that t he policeman arrested the accused-appellant on the basis solely of what Reynaldo Castro had told him and not because he saw the accusedappellant commit the crime charged against him. Indeed, the prosecution admitted that there was no warrant of arrest issued against accused-appellant when the latter was taken into custody. Considering that the accusedappellant was not committing a crime at the time he was arrested nor did the arresting officer have any personal knowledge of facts indicating that accused-appellant committed a crime, his arrest without a warrant cannot be justified. 27. What is the effect on the illegality of the arrest by the subsequent act of the accused in posting bond for his provisional liberty and entering a plea during his arraignment?

CA. it being one of the recognized exceptions under the Rules. may the arresting officers validly search his car parked several meters from the place of arrest based on “search incidental to a valid arrest”? Where the gun tucked in a person’s waist is plainly visible to the police. 30. IT IS NOW SETTLED THAT OBJECTION TO A WARRANT OF ARREST OR THE PROCEDURE BY WHICH A COURT ACQUIRES JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF AN ACCUSED MUST BE MADE BEFORE HE ENTERS HIS PLEA. THE OBJECTION IS DEEMED WAIVED. no search warrant is necessary and in the absence of any license for said firearm. 355 SCRA 246) 28. he may be lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. Rule 126. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANDRE MARTI. PANO. he may be arrested at once as he is in effect committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. 482 SCRA 660) 29. GALVEZ. if accused was arrested while inside a jeepney. THE FACT THAT THE ARREST WAS ILLEGAL DOES NOT RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS VOID AND DEPRIVE THE STATE OF ITS RIGHT TO CONVICT THE GUILTY WHEN ALL THE FACTS POINT TO THE CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED. January 18. NO. INC. VS. 1991. What are the requisites of a valid search incidental to a valid arrest? As held in NOLASCO VS. the search of his house nearby is not a valid search incidental to a valid arrest. the accusedappellant waived his right to raise the issue of illegality of his arrest. OTHERWISE.R. As such. a search incidental to a valid arrest must be done at the place where the accused is arrested. 288 SCRA 588. SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL. As a consequence of the accused’s valid warrantless arrest inside the nightclub.51 By entering a plea of not guilty during the arraignment. ET AL. Is a warrantless search and seizure by a private individual valid? Yes since the constitutional provision is not applicable to him. if the accused was arrested in the street during a buy-bust operation. Or as held in ESPANO VS. 81561. G. 139 SCRA 541. without a search warrant in accordance with Section 12. . there is no valid search incidental to a valid arrest if she will be brought to her residence and thereafter search the said place. (PEOPLE VS. No warrant is necessary in such a situation. If the accused was validly arrested without warrant inside a night club for illegal possession of firearm. This is a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest.. ROGELIO SOLUTA.

June 23. BUT INADVERTENTLY COMES ACROSS AN INCRIMINATING OBJECT. This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay. 28 PHIL. What is the “plain view doctrine” in connection with warrantless search and seizure? As held in PEOPLE VS. can be used as evidence against the accused . the “plain view” doctrine. (PEOPLE VS. VS. APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE POLICE OFFICER IS NOT SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE AGAINS THE ACCUSED. and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched".52 In fact. SY JUCO. (P. As such. 667. ALVAREZ VS. In order that there is a valid consent to a warrantless search. the subsequent discovery in his car which was parked in a distant place from where the illegal possession of firearm was committed [after he requested that he will bring his car to the Police Station after his warrantless arrest) . VALDEZ. ADDISON. “plain view doctrine could not be used to justify the seizure of an unlicensed firearm in People vs. (Quintero vs. CFI. 34. The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant. Damaso. 64 PHIL. US VS. 341 SCRA 25. 566). has been defined "as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed. 32. 33. not due to search incidental to a valid arrest. 64 PHIL. May the police authorities validly search the rented apartment of a suspect without a search warrant or without the consent of the said person BUT WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OWNER OF THE APARTMENT? No. the consent must come from the person directly affected by said warrantless search. which was seen on top of a table after the opening of the apartment’s door without a warrant nor consent of the occupant therein. As such. supra. Define probable cause in connection with the issuance of a search warrant. Commissioner. of a drug paraphernalia and shabu. which may justify a search without warrant. 1988). PEOPLE VS. DAMASO. What is the “sufficiency test” in connection with applications for a search warrant? . 212 SCRA 547 abandoned the ruling in Lopez vs. CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE DURING AN ILLEGAL SEARCH because of his consent. GO. drug paraphernalia and the shabu. 33. the items do not fall under the exclusionary rule and the unlicensed firearms. 354 SCRA 338) 31. NBI.

As such. GOZO VS. 210 SCRA 97. the firearm is not admissible as evidence. GR No. If the offense committed is a serious one like that obtaining in this case for . SEPTEMBER 26. NEMESIO PRUDENTE VS. the Supreme Court held that warrantless searches and seizures in military and police checkpoints are not illegal as these measures to protect the government and safeguards the lives of the people. there was no consent to search for firearms and as a consequence. 83988. they instead seized an unlicensed firearm. The checkpoints are legal as where the survival of the organized government is on the balance. In VEROY VS. or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril. must he issue a warrant of arrest as a matter of course? It depends: 1. NOT BODILY SEARCH. Is an unlicensed firearm seized in the house of the accused without warrant by the military authorities. September 29. LAYAGUE. admissible in evidence? No. 1989. RTC 33. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant of a search warrant and/or his witnesses. As such.53 "The true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it was drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage caused. However. DAYRIT. 1989) 35. May the police and military authorities validly search the citizens without warrant in checkpoints set up by them? What is the extent of the search that they may conduct? In RICARDO VALMONTE VS. if the court believes that the presence of the accused could be had even without a warrant of arrest. 82870. the Supreme Court held that the owner of the house allowed the policemen to enter his house because they will be searching for rebel soldiers but when inside the house. not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considers to be reliable. Note: This case involves a minor offense) 2. THE HON. 37. If the judge finds that there's probable cause." (DR. GR No. after they were given consent by the said owner of the house for them to search for rebel soldiers. 36. GEN RENATO DE VILLA. 1988 (No because a warrant is issued in order to have jurisdiction of the court over the person of an accused and to assure the court of his presence whenever his case is called in court. TAC-AN. SAMULDE VS. 300 SCRA 265. then he may not issue said warrant. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ABELARDO M. December 14. the Supreme Court clarified that the military officers manning the checkpoints may conduct VISUAL SEARCH ONLY. SALVANI. Manila & People of the Philippines.

it was held that the master copy of the allegedly pirated tape should be presented before the judge in order to convince him of the existence of probable cause) 40. 261 SCRA 144. 164 SCRA 655 and COLUMBIA PICTURES VS. 2007. or spoken or written words of a person without violating the right to privacy? Yes under Sections 7 and 8 of the law which provides: Section 7. listen to. or with the use of any other suitable ways or means for that purpose. supra. form or kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices. CA. 2007 and effective on July 15. (Prudente vs. 9372. Ignalaga. Dayrit. Under the Human Security Act/Anti-Terrorism Law.1987) 39. message. conversation. any communication. knowledge based on hearsay information does not justify the existence of probable cause. intercept and record. form or kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices. with the use of any mode. a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may. discussion. What is the effect on the evidence obtained in violation of Sections 2 and 3 of Article III? Any evidence obtained in violation of Sections 2 and 3 of Article III shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Ponsica vs. and not positive statements of particular acts. mere conclusions of law.54 murder. If the applicant for a search warrant testifies that his knowledge of the facts and circumstances was derived from a “highly reliable informant”. the warrant issued by virtue thereof is not valid. July 31. Republic Act No. Approved on March 6. intercept and record.) In fact. conversation. with the use of any mode. In the seizure of alleged pirated tapes. or with the use of any other suitable ways or means for that purpose. when the statements in the affidavits of witnesses are mere generalities. message. the Judge must issue a warrant of arrest after determining the existence of probable cause) 38. Surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of communications. discussion. upon a written order of the Court of Appeals. The provisions of RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding. 41. or spoken or written words . what must the applicant submit to the court in order that the search warrant to be issued shall be valid? In Century Fox vs. CA. would such fact sufficient to convince the court of the existence of “probable cause”? No. any communication. may police authorities the listen to.

papers. journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized. if any. or to the solution or prevention of any such crimes. discussions. Provided. and the written authorizations of the Anti-Terrorism Council shall be deemed and are hereby declared as classified information: Provided.55 between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization. or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. or is about to be committed. tap. 9. doctors and patients. spoken or written words and effects have been monitored. association. shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals UPON AN EX-PARTE written application of a police or law enforcement official who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in Section 53 of this Act to file such ex-parte application. conversations. Sec. listen. That surveillance. and • That there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence. or is being committed. intercept.. and record communications. messages. discussions. That the person being surveilled or whose communications. bugged or recorded by law enforcement authorities has the right to be informed of the acts done by the . interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients. or spoken or written words of any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism. will be obtained. letters. including his application to extend or renew. The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as well as its order. to extend or renew the same. messages. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization.The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to track down. Section 8. listened to. and upon examination under oath and affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses who may produce to establish: • That there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed. • That there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that evidence which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for. the original application of the applicant. conversations. if any.

listen to. if known. intercepted or recorded and. listened to. messages. 10. which shall not exceed 30 days from the date of receipt of the written order of the authorizing division of the court of Appeals by the applicant police or law enforcement official. and • The length of time which the authorization shall be used or carried out. intercept. in case of radio. the electronic transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tracked down. listened to. or spoken or written words are to be tracked down. messages. or spoken or written words. Section. Any authorization granted by the authorizing division of the court of Appeals…shall only be effective for the length of time specified in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals. The written order of the authorizing division of the court of Appeals shall specify the following: • The identity. of the charged of suspected persons whose communications. discussions. such as name and address. conversations. tapped. tap. tapped. conversations. The CA may extend or renew the said authorization for another non-extendible period. which shall not exceed 30 days from the expiration of the original period…The ex-parte application for renewal has been duly authorized by the Antiterrorism Council in writing. or spoken or written words. such person shall be subject to continuous surveillance provided there is reasonable ground to do so. or sought to be prevented. • The identity (name and address. • The offense or offenses committed. and the police or law enforcement organization) of the members of his team judicially authorized to track down. intercepted. electronic. Effective Period of Judicial Authorization. . and record the communications. discussions. discussions. if he or she intends to do so. or telephone (whether wireless or otherwise) communications. and recorded and their locations if the person suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is not fully known. or being committed.56 law enforcement authorities in the premises or to challenge. conversations. messages. the legality of the interference before the Court of Appeals which issued said written order.

57 42. when so ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of Appeals. examine or cause the examination of. • Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons. assets. association or group of persons. trust accounts. 9372. The bank or financial institution shall not refuse to allow such examination or to provide the desired information. 28. assets. 2007 and effective on July 15. trust accounts. may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer and the members of his team duly authorized in writing by the anti-terrorism council to: 1. in a bank or financial institution-SHALL ONLY BE GRANTED BY THE AUTHORIZING DIVISION OF THE CA UPON AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION TO THAT EFFECT OF A POLICE OR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL who has . 2007. Approved on March 6. It provides: Section 27. trust accounts. Application to examine deposits. may police authorities examine the bank accounts of individuals without violating their right to privacy? Yes under Sections 27 and 28 of the said law. placements. Judicial authorization required to examine bank deposits. • Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization. the deposits. and 2. placements. accounts and records. The justices of CA designated as special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose that: • A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. The written order of the CA authorizing the examination of bank deposits. Under the Human Security Act/Anti-Terrorism Law. • Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization. assets and records: • A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. Republic Act No. and records from a bank or financial institution. gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits. association or group of persons. • Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons. placements. and records in a bank or financial institution. accounts and records. Sec.

The interest of the government and the society demands full discussion of public affairs. 43. placements. May the above rule applicable to private individuals who are public figures or private individuals who are candidates for public office? As held by the Supreme Court in the case of BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER & CECILLE AFABLE VS. association or group of persons. • Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization. the evidence obtained by the wife who forcibly opened the drawers at the clinic of her doctor-husband and took diaries. JR.58 been duly authorized by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file such ex-parte application and upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and his witnesses he may produce to establish the facts that will justify the need and urgency of examining and freezing the bank deposits. computers. 731) 45.” 44. trust accounts. or other means of communications with people outside their residence.. Bustos. Is the freedom of speech and expression affected by the Human Security Act? Yes. the article involving a private individual running for Mayor of Baguio City is still within the mantle of protection guaranteed by the freedom of expression provided in . checks and greeting cards of his alleged paramours is inadmissible as evidence. February 10. it provides that persons who have been charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail because evidence of guilt is not strong—can be: “Prohibited from using any cellular phones. under Section 26 of the law. checks and greeting cards of the alleged paramours of her husband and use the same as evidence in a legal separation case between them? As held in ZULUETA VS. 37 Phil. assets and records: • Of A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. 2004 . 444 SCRA 28 [November 25. (US vs. COURT OF APPEALS & RAMON LABO. May a wife validly seize the diaries. This is so because the intimacies of husband and wife does not justify the breaking of cabinets to determine marital infidelity. 1996. What is the rule on criticisms on the acts of public officers? A public official should not be too onion-skinned with reference to comments upon his official acts. CA. • Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons. 43.

The people affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the right to expression may be exercised. such would be an undue interference on the freedom of expression. The people's right to be informed and to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an unabridged discussion of the issues.59 the Constitution since it is the public’s right to be informed of the mental. The importance to the State and to society of such discussions is so vast. 254 where the US Supreme Court held: “…it is of the utmost consequence that the people should discuss the character and qualifications of candidates for their suffrages. 338 [1909] and the case of NEW YORK TIMES VS. COMELEC. May the COMELEC validly prohibit columnists.R. the questioned articles constitute fair comment on a matter of public interest as it dealt with the character of the private respondent who was running for the top elective post in Baguio City at that time. (PABLITO V. 376 U. January 29. 1990) 47. SEDANO. NO. INCLUDING THE FORUM. radio announcers and TV commentator for commenting for or against any issue during the plebiscite period since they can air their views in a program sponsored by the COMELEC itself? No. 90878. although at times such injury may be great. SANIDAD VS. and occasional injury to the reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare. 14 Phil. SULLIVAN. This was recognized as early as the case of US VS. 46. and the advantages derived so great. What are the requisites that a newspaper must comply in order that its news item on an ongoing trial in court will not be actionable for being libelous? . IT IS STILL A RESTRICTION ON THE COLUMNIST. that such discussion must be privileged. The public benefit from publicity is so great and the chance of injury to private character so small. moral and physical fitness of candidates for public office.S. G. “ Clearly. Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved. ANNOUNCER OR COMMENTATOR’S CHOICE OF THE FORUM WHERE HE MAY EXPRESS HIS VIEW.

after their demand to the government was not met” In GESITE et al. prosecutor and judge at the same time. they constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of. (Bangalisan vs. 49. work which it was the teachers’ duty to perform. May the City Mayor order the confiscation without a search warrant magazines which he believes to be obscene? What is the correct procedure for him to follow? No. it was held that in order that any news item relating to a judicial proceeding will not be actionable. or absence from. A City Mayor may not order the warrantless seizure of magazines which he believes to be obscene. CA. artistic.” It is undisputed fact that there was a work stoppage and that petitioners’ purpose was to realize their demands by withholding their services. 444 SCRA 51 held that “these mass actions were to all intents and purposes a strike. (Pita vs. WITHOUT INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. AND NOT ITS APPEARANCE. He should obtain a search warrant from a judge by following the procedure laid down by the Rules on how to secure a search warrant. he will become the complainant. 50. and [c] no comments nor remarks shall be made by the writer} 48. SINCE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SITUATION. the same must be [a] a true and fair report of the actual proceedings. CA. 37 L. 178 SCRA 362). [b] must be done in good faith. 276 SCRA 619) . political or scientific value. otherwise. Gutierrez. Whether the work depicts or describes a patently offensive sexual conduct. WILL BE DEEMED CONTROLLING.60 In Elizalde vs. vs. COURT OF APPEALS. 2. The right of government employees to organize IS LIMITED TO THE FORMATIONS OF UNIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS ONLY. Ed. 2d 419 are: 1. May public school teachers validly file mass leaves. Whether the average person applying to contemporary community standards would find the work appeals to prurient interest. What are the tests of obscenity? The three (3) tests as held in Miller vs.76 SCRA 448. 3. California. The fact that the conventional term “strike” was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential. Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary . undertaken for essentially economic reasons. instead of going on strike.

R. ARTURO M.P. PEDRO BULAONG. it is not vague. KARAPATAN. the policy of dispersing rallyists through water cannons. not the government. Gen. the public place where and the time when it will take place. VIDAL QUEROL. only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. Gen. (BAYAN. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. It is very clear that it deals only on public assemblies that deals with rallies. Thereafter. B. must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. whether favorable or adverse. and GABRIELA vs. If it were a private place. Neither is the law overbroad. May. On the other hand. his decision. It regulates the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly and petition only to the extent needed to avoid a clear and present danger of the substantive evils Congress has the right to prevent. . they can have recourse to the proper judicial authority. Chief of the Philippine National Police. Is BP 880 unconstitutional for being vague (Void for Vagueness Doctrine) and overbroad (Overbreadth Doctrine)? No. No. and Western Police District Chief Gen. mass actions and similar acts and not all kinds of public assemblies. the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy. “maximum tolerance” is for the benefit of rallyists. the applicants must be heard on the matter. As such. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil. it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms. What is the procedure to be followed in the application of rally permits before the City or Municipal Mayor in accordance with BP Bilang 880? The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date. especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Far from being insidious. 2006) 52. 169848.61 51. Thus if so minded. G. it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time. 53. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. in his capacity as Executive Secretary. ( BAYAN. has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. No. EDUARDO ERMITA. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. For this reason. Manila City Mayor LITO ATIENZA. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally “permits” is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard. LOMIBAO. place and manner of assemblies. Is the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) of the Arroyo Administration towards rallyists constitutional? The Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people. NCRPO Chief Maj. KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP).

ARTURO M. KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP). NCRPO Chief Maj. . and the regulation results in an indirect. Distinguish “clear and present danger”. conditional.62 KARAPATAN. Manila City Mayor LITO ATIENZA. No. May.. then such words are punishable) The balancing-of-interest test (When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of the public order. the latter’s right prevail because Enrile’s part in the movie deals solely on his acts as a public officer then. LOMIBAO. ET AL. in his capacity as Executive Secretary. May Senator Juan Ponce Enrile prevent the movie producer of the EDSA I Revolution movie from including his participation during the uprising since it violates his right to privacy? No. Since the movie producer is primarily after profits only. JUAN PONCE ENRILE. Gen. Clear and present danger and dangerous tendency rule (whether the words used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the State has the right to prevent) Dangerous tendency rule (If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency which the State has the right to prevent. Gonzales). partial abridgment of speech. VIDAL QUEROL. As between the right to privacy invoked by the mother and the freedom of expression invoked by the movie producer. as between Enrile’s right to privacy and the freedom of expression on the part of the movie producer. G. the state shall balance their respective interests. (Lagunzad vs. EDUARDO ERMITA. and Western Police District Chief Gen. a. 160 SCRA 861) 56. (AYER PRODUCTION VS. “dangerous tendency rule” and “balancing of interest test”. and b. the right to privacy shall prevail. May the mother of a murdered Mayor stop the filming of the life story of her son which would include his alleged love affairs which would blacken his memory? Yes. Freedom to believe. and GABRIELA vs. Gen. PEDRO BULAONG. Chief of the Philippine National Police. What are the two (2) aspects of the RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND WORSHIP ? Distinguish each. Freedom to act. To exclude him as integral part of the revolution would be a distortion of history. 2006) 54. JUDGE CAPULONG. the duty of the courts is to determine which of the 2 conflicting interests demand greater protection under the circumstances presented.) 55. 57. 169848.R.

Las Pinas City. 1993). his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the State. or none at all. and Salute the Flag under pain of being expelled for non-compliance? No since such is in violation of their religious beliefs. be held liable for “grossly immoral conduct” for living with a married man while her very own marriage was still subsisting? No. and Salute the Flag. Secretary of Education was reversed. Religious freedom is superior to the statute requiring the pupils to sing the National Anthem. 408 SCRA 1. May children of Jehovah’s Witnesses in public schools be forced to sing the National Anthem. . • That the conjugal arrangement with Quilapio has the approval of her congregation. 492 SCRA 1 (Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration). Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to religion. (ROEL EBRALINAG. if the individual externalizes what he believes. The doctrine laid down in Gerona vs.63 IN the first. Escritor likewise claimed that she had executed a “DECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESS” in accordance with her religion which allows members of the Jehovah’s witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. recite the Patriotic Pledge. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU. worship any god he chooses. The Declaration thus makes the resulting union moral and binding within the congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed. SOLEDAD ESCRITOR. ET AL VS. recite the Patriotic Pledge. 59. In the second. the Supreme Court held that she is not liable for grossly immoral conduct because: • She is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society. March 1. He may not be punished even if he cannot prove what he believes. 58. This is so because religious freedom can be exercised only with due regard to the rights of others. May a Jehovah’s Witnesses Member who is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253. He may indulge in his own theories about life and death. Example: “Go forth and multiply---cannot marry several times just to comply. • That the conjugal arrangement was in conformity with their religious beliefs. As held in ESTRADA VS. such freedom is absolute.

IS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND. Section 26 provides that persons who have been charged with terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism---even if they have been granted bail because evidence of guilt is not strong—can be: • Detained under house arrest. HON. September 15. shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of the bail which shall then be forfeited as provided in the Rules of Court. VS. These restrictions shall be terminated upon acquittal of the accused. 1989). RAUL MANGLAPUS. May President Marcos validly compel the government to issue him his travel papers in order that he could return to the Philippines from his US exile? No. or earlier upon the discretion of the court or upon motion of the prosecutor. 62. 61. G. 88211. What is provided by the Philippine Constitution is the right to travel and not the right to return. ET AL. or public health. in the interest of national security and public safety. as may be provided by law. public safety. or the dismissal of the case filed against him. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security. 63. THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE'S COUNTRY IS NOT AMONG THE RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. and/or Upon application of the prosecutor. BUT IT IS OUR WELLCONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RIGHT TO RETURN MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. without the authorization of the court.R.. the suspect’s right to travel shall be limited to the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending. How may the right to travel be impaired? 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. • Restricted from traveling.64 60. (FERDINAND MARCOS. UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. NO. Travel outside of said municipality or city. These two (2) rights are different under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ET AL. 1989 and the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 27. Is the right to travel affected by the Human Security Act? Yes. What is the “residual power” of the President? . WHICH TREATS ONLY OF THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL.

the COMELEC must publish the same despite the prohibition in the law. EDUARDO ERMITA. May the President validly prohibit members of her Cabinet as well as other officers in the executive department from attending investigations in aid of legislation by Congress? No. While the right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized and access to official records…shall be afforded the citizen. the request must be done during office hours. May the COMELEC be compelled to publish the names of the nominees of the different party-list groups for the May 14. [2] the duration thereof. Elbinias.. 64. 2007 elections despite the prohibition on such publication as embodied by the Party-List Act? YES. 16977. COMELEC. 2007) 67. ET AL. etc. represented by SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON. 65. April 20.R. 148 SCRA 83) . it must be subject to such limitations as may be provided by law as well as reasonable conditions imposed by public officials in custody of said records like the payment of the expenses of reproduction of public documents. Is the right to information on matters of public concern absolute? No. subject to the approval by the President. May a Barangay validly exercise the power of eminent domain? Yes.. ET AL. VS. MAY 4. It is only through said investigations that the people will be informed of the workings of the different departments of the government. May a person out on bail be validly allowed to travel abroad? Yes. and [3] that his sureties are willing to undertake the responsibility of allowing him to travel.65 It is the power of the President in balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. EXEC.( Barangay Matictic vs. 66. Such would violate the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. The power involved is the President's RESIDUAL POWER to protect the general welfare of the people. (BANTAY REPUBLIC VS. (SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Such prohibition violates the right to information on matters of public concern on the part of the citizen. 142 SCRA 149): He must however [1] convince the courts of the urgency of his travel. subject to the following requisites ( Manotoc vs. SEC. No. CA. 2006 ) 68. G.

In ordinary expropriation cases. shall be complied with: 1. Who determines the just compensation in expropriation cases? What are the factors to be considered in determining the same? Determination of just compensation is a judicial function with the assistance or recommendation of the court-appointed commissioners. JUDGE LEGASPI. If the expropriation is for a “National government projects” or “national infrastructure projects”. JUDGE BACALLA. If the expropriation is being done by a Local Government Unit. CA. It provides: PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. and 2. the expropriator must deposit the amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market value of the property to be expropriated based on its current tax declaration. 3. What are the requisites before an expropriator may validly obtain a writ of possession to take over possession of the expropriated property? It depends: 1. the Supreme Court decision in the case of THE CITY OF ILOILO VS. the complaint for expropriation filed in court is sufficient in form and substance. RA 8974 shall be followed. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. (Manotok vs. ILOILO CITY. 70. 478 SCRA 474) 2. May 21. JUDGE GINGOYON. RULE 67 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN THE ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CASE.1987) . THE ONLY REQUISITES FOR THE IMMEDIATE ENTRY BY THE GOVERNMENT IN EXPROPRIATION CASES ARE: • the filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and substance. This means that there must be a [a] Complaint for expropriation which is sufficient in form and in substance. like those covered by the “BuildOperate-Transfer”. and [2] the 100% of the market value of the property sought to be expropriated must first be paid to the owner of the property. the rule is that in the case of BIGLANG-AWA VS. and • the making of a deposit equivalent to the ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EXPROPRIATION. 354 SCRA 562.66 69. RTC 22. 444 SCRA 269.

b. 71. if any. Santos. the tax declarations thereon. vs. 3. 73. and the owner must be ousted from beneficial use of his land. INC.67 The factors to be considered compensation/market value are: in determining the just 1. (BERKENKOTTER. Finally. 40 Phil. 5. e. the current value of like proerties. the expropriator must enter the property. ( Rep. December 14. COURT OF APPEALS AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. location. VS. their size. cost of acquisition. 4. 2. and 6. 58 SCRA 336) 72. (City of Manila vs. . Castellvi. 349). note that as held in the case of Republic vs. What are the requisites of “taking” in expropriation cases? The Requisites of taking are: a. Every other warnings. Chinese Community. the entry must be under warrant of color or title. the entrance must not be for just a momentary period. The person arrested. 2. 141 SCRA 30. c. information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person. detained. the market value as recommended by the board of commissioners appointed by the court were at best only ADVISORY AND PERSUASIVE AND BY NO MEANS FINAL OR BINDING. invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown a copy of the warrant of arrest. the property must be devoted for public use. 1992). its actual or potential uses. He must be warned that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him. What are the rights of a person under custodial investigation under the “Mahinay doctrine” or the “Expanded Miranda Doctrine”? The rights are: 1. particular case of lands. a private property which is already devoted to public use may not be expropriated for another public purpose. shape. d. May a private property already used as a private cemetery be expropriated for a public purpose? No.

otherwise. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily. . he must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer. 10.The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent. the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced. priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel. one will be provided for him. radio. 6. or the interrogation has begun.68 3. or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-governmental organization. 4. 9. The person arrested must be informed that. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer. In addition. if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or state of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with the warning that once he makes such indication. 8. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFICER TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED. letter or messenger--with his lawyer (either retained or appointed). 7. or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf. any member of his immediate family. he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel. knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same. 5. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer. the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any other time during the process. and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf. he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means---telephone. at any time. he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak. or any medical doctor. preferably of his own choice. regardless of whether he may have .

69 answered some questions or volunteered some information or statements. (THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. of his or her right: 1. to be informed of the nature and cause of his arrest. whether inculpatory or exculpatory. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of the counsel of choice. JOSE TING LAN UY. 11. allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of his family or with his nearest relatives and be visited by them. obtained in violation of any of the foregoing.. What are the rights of a person under “custodial detention” for one suspected or arrested as a terrorist under the Human Security Act? The rights are embodied under Section 21 thereof which states: Section 21. 75. Rights of a person under custodial detention. 2. in whole or in part.The moment a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism is apprehended or arrested and detained. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his or her choice. informed of the cause or causes of his detention in the presence of his legal counsel. to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice... 475 SCRA 248). 74. SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.He must be informed that any statement OR EVIDENCE. The “investigation” under said provision refers to “custodial . the police or law enforcement officers concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of the IBP or the Public attorney’s office (PAO). allowed to communicate freely with his legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction. The claim that his affidavit is inadmissible in evidence in accordance with section 12 [1] of the Bill of Rights is not tenable. allowed freely to avail of the services of a physician or physicians of choice. as the case may be. and 5. It shall be the duty of the free legal assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO’s thus contacted to immediately visit the person detained and provide him with legal assistance. 3. he shall forthwith be informed by the arresting police or law enforcement officers to whose custody the person concerned is brought. JR. et al. 4. Are the above rights available to a suspect if investigation but by a private person? he is under No.

as where appellant orally admitted killing the victim before the barangay captain (who is neither a police officer nor a law enforcement agent). 76. article III does not apply to administrative investigations (People vs. even while they were still walking along the highway on their way to the police station. Duenas. Judge Ayson. 353 SCRA 307). Endino. BARIQUIT. THE PLACE OF INTERROGATION IS NOT DETERMINATIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OR ABSENCE OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION BUT THE TONE AND MANNER OF QUESTIONING BY THE POLICE AUTHORITIES . 334 SCRA 673). there was custodial investigation when the police authorities. Are spontaneous admissions made before a person could be informed of his rights during custodial investigation admissible as evidence? Yes. . ( PEOPLE VS. Clearly. 323 SCRA 589). the rights enumerated by the accused are not available BEFORE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATORS ENTER THE PICTURE. 232 SCRA 53). Jr. custodial investigation refers to the critical pre-trial stage when the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has began to focus on a particular person as a suspect (People vs.. In fact. therefore. Such admission. Thus. When is custodial investigation deemed to have started so as to entitle the suspect to be informed of his rights under the Mahinay Doctrine? Custodial investigation begins when it is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but starts to focus on a particular person as a suspect. i. The protective mantle of section 12. Ordono. confession to a private individual (Kimpo vs. 426 SCRA 666). do not fall under custodial investigation.70 investigation where a suspect has already been taken into police custody and that the investigating officers begin to ask questions to elicit information and confessions or admissions from the suspect.e. 341 SCRA 600) 77. 175 SCRA 216).. when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense. verbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not a part of the investigation (People vs. CA. may attempt to legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions and place them beyond the exclusionary rule by having an accused admit an offense on television (People vs. with the connivance of unscrupulous media practitioners. Spontaneous statements voluntarily given. even a videotaped interview where the accused willingly admit his guilt in the presence of newsmen is not covered by the said provision though the trial courts were warned by the supreme Court to take extreme caution in admitting similar confessions because of the distinct possibility that the police. or even to a Mayor approached as a personal confidante and not in his official capacity (People vs. immediately asked them regarding their participation in the commission of the crime . Zuela. upon their arrest of some of the accused. Succinctly stated.

. is inadmissible in evidence. is inadmissible in evidence. 2000). To be admissible in evidence. G. (ii) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel . 31. NO. SAMOLDE. NOVEMBER 29. PEOPLE VS. 2000. an extrajudicial confession must be: (i) voluntary. A suspect’s confession. (iii) express. 336 SCRA 632. 2000. DANO. 346 SCRA 458.R. even if appellant’s confession were gospel truth. 354 SCRA 413. without a valid waiver of such assistance. MAYORGA. without a valid waiver of such assistance. even if appellant’s confession were gospel truth. 1.R. Not only was the accused subjected to custodial investigation without counsel. Assistance of counsel must be effective. whether verbal or non-verbal. regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily given. 79. (PEOPLE VS. 339 SCRA 515. when taken without the assistance of counsel. he was likewise denied effective assistance of counsel during the taking of his extra-judicial confession. 117690. (ii) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. A lawyer who could just hear the investigation going on while working on another case hardly satisfies the minimum requirements of effective assistance of counsel. 339 SCRA 515. regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily given. PEOPLE VS. (PEOPLE VS. As held in PEOPLE VS. DANO. does not violate appellant’s constitutional rights AND THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. 1.71 even without the assistance of a lawyer. NO. NO. G.R. What are the requisites before an extrajudicial confession is admissible? To be admissible in evidence. (iii) express. SEPT. NO. A suspect’s confession. 78. and (iv) in writing. PATUNGAN. vigilant and independent. and (iv) in writing. 135405. JUL. G.R. G. SEPT. 2000). 128551. 117690. Is the presence of a lawyer to assist the suspect during custodial investigation sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Constitution? No. when taken without the assistance of counsel. an extrajudicial confession must be: (i) voluntary. whether verbal or non-verbal. the mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement of assistance of counsel.

however. PANFILO CABILES. III of the Constitution? . As such. TAN. This was the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PEOPLE VS. it was held that the counsel must be present from the inception of the custodial investigation not at any time thereafter. and d. Furthermore. 82. she was the police officers' own choice. March 3. From what time must the counsel assist the suspect during custodial investigation? Who must choose such counsel? In PEOPLE V. December 12. ANDAN. 135 SCRA 465. Is the extrajudicial confession of a suspect obtained without the assistance of a lawyer. his uncounselled confession is admissible in evidence. The above requirements. Also. the former judge was not present when Marcos was being interrogated by the police. 1997 when the accused made a voluntary and verbal confession to the Municipal Mayor that he committed the crime imputed to him. and PEOPLE VS. Art. 82604. this is far from being substantial compliance with the constitutional duty of police investigators during custodial interrogation. the former judge whose assistance was requested by the police was evidently not of Marcos Jimenez' own choice. the confession must be voluntary. the confession must be in writing. While she asked him if he had voluntarily given the statements contained in the typewritten document. PEOPLE VS.72 80. 286 SCRA 207. it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it was voluntarily given. c. JIMENEZ. she did not ask Marcos if he was willing to have her represent him. the lawyer who assists the suspect under custodial interrogation should be of the latter's own choice. not elicited through questioning by the authorities. if it was made without the assistance of counsel. the confession must be express. In this case. the following requisites must be present: a. 1991. 284 SCRA 199. 81. but speaks of gospel truth. are not applicable when the suspect makes an spontaneous statement. This is not the mode of solicitation of legal assistance contemplated by the Constitution. b. BUT GIVEN IN AN ORDINARY MANNER WHEREBY THE ACCUSED ORALLY ADMITTED HAVING COMMITTED THE CRIME. GALIT. not one foisted on him by the police investigators or other parties.R. What are the two (2) kinds of coerced or involuntary confessions under Section 12. it was held that even if the confession of the accused speaks the truth. G. In PEOPLE VS. admissible in evidence? No. the confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. In order that a confession is admissible. No.

there is no need for him to be assisted by a lawyer. 157 SCRA 261. ( P vs. Usman Hassan. (PEOPLE VS. 332 SCRA 190 83. HATTON) 86. intimidation. Is there a valid custodial investigation if the lawyer who assisted him during custodial investigation is a public attorney who was not chosen by the accused himself but given to him free of charge? Could the Fiscal also represent the accused during custodial investigation to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution that the accused is assisted by counsel? The counsel must be the choice of the accused or suspect.” 84. 267 SCRA 608 held that a lawyer applying for a position in the NBI could not validly assist an accused being investigated then by the NBI. 162 SCRA 642. OBRERO. JANUARIO. confession which are the product of third degree methods such as torture. while being investigated by other policemen of the same police station because the interest of the police is naturally adverse to the accused. the Fiscal could not have protected the rights of the suspect. PEOPLE VS. What is the status of coerced confessions as evidence in court? Coerced or involuntary confessions are inadmissible as evidence being the “fruit of the poisoned tree. 294 SCRA 196 and PEOPLE VS. Is the right to counsel satisfied if the suspect was assisted by the Station Commander of the Western Police District while he was being investigated by the policemen of the same station? How about if the investigation is being conducted by the NBI and the suspect was ordered assisted by a lawyer-applicant therein? There is no compliance of the constitutional requirement of competent and independent counsel to assist an accused during custodial investigation when the accused was assisted by the Station Commander of the WPD. the SC in the case of PEOPLE VS. These are: a. In fact. Is the right to counsel available to a suspect during a police line-up? The Supreme Court had conflicting decisions on this aspect but ended up with the rule that since the accused will not be made to make any testimony during the police line-up. since the Fiscal is . Atty. 1990) Also. CA. those which are given without the benefit of Miranda Warnings. even if they are known to each other. Gamboa vs. and b. OBRERO. DE LA TORRE VS. vs. violence. September 28. 332 SCRA 190) 85. force.73 The two (2) kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions under Art. Section 12 of the Constitution. Judge Cruz. De los Reyes. then he is not under custodial investigation and therefore. threat. Alegria. III. (P.

[b] the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. must the accused be acquitted as a matter of right? No. and [2] the totality of such circumstances eliminated beyond doubt the possibility of his innocence. (Almeda vs. then he can still be convicted of the crime charged. In ATTY. 2002. RTC 2 BORONGAN. In PEOPLE VS. May a judge require “cash bond” only? No. THEY DO NOT APPLY TO A PERSON CONVICTED BY FINAL JUDGMENT AND ALREADY SERVING SENTENCE. In People vs. It is patently erroneous to release a convict on recognizance. 89. like circumstantial evidence. Sections 5 and 16 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court (on the different kinds of bail) APPLIES ONLY TO AN ACCUSED UNDERGOING PREVENTIVE IMPRISONMENT DURING TRIAL OR ON APPEAL. the Supreme Court held that though the extrajudicial confession of the accused was declared inadmissible for violation of his right to counsel. March 20. 88. (P. 66 SCRA 38). Villaluz. Rule 114 provides that there shall no bail for a convict after final judgment. it was held that conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence provided the following requisites are present: [a] there is more than one circumstance. it was held that respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for ordering the release of Bagaporo pending the approval of his application for parole and before the completion of the minimum period of the sentence imposed upon him.74 there for the private complainant. 1990) 87. Section 24. This is so because [1] the compromising circumstances were duly proven which were consistent with each other and which lead with moral certainty to the conclusion that he was guilty of the crime charged. SAMAR. September 11. . vs. JUDGE ARNULFO BUGTAS. 475 SCRA 175. The Rules provides for four (4) ways of posting bond and it is grave abuse of discretion to require cash bond only. ROLANDO FELIXMINIA y CAMACHO. 125333. GR No. if there are evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. May a convicted person be released from jail through recognizance? No. If the extrajudicial admission or confession of the accused is declared inadmissible as evidence. Mahinay. Matos-Viduaya. JULIANA ADALIM-WHITE VS. and [c] the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The only exception is when the convict applies for Probation before he commences to serve his sentence and that the offense and the penalty for the offense is within the purview of the Probation Law.

If the probability of “flight” is nil. III of the 1987 Constitution applies only to criminal cases. What is the “EQUIPOISE RULE”? If the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced. then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction because of the accused’s constitutional . May an accused charged of a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong be granted bail? Yes. JUDGE LANTION. JUDGE PURUGGANAN & MARK JUMENEZ. then the accused may be allowed to post bail. RTC 17. the Supreme Court held that the prospective extraditee is not entitled to notice and hearing while his case is still under evaluation because this would defeat the purpose of the arrest warrant since it could give warning that respondents would be arrested and even encourage them to flee but entitled to notice and hearing if the case is already filed in court. 483 SCRA 290). In SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS. May a person subject of extradition from another country and where the cases against him in said country are bailable. April. in a 9-6 decision. a person facing extradition proceedings is not entitled to bail even if the crime he was charged of in a foreign country is bailable. MANILA. is the respondent therein entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him? No. be allowed to post bail pending the extradition hearings? No.75 90. MANILA. Where the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more interpretations one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt. not in extradition proceedings. 2002. (EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ VS. Otherwise. The cancellation of his bail bond may be made only after notice and hearing. As held in UNITED STATES VS. However. 483 SCRA 290) It is a different matter if at first. 322 SCRA 160 (The Mark Jimenez Case) . THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. In extradition cases. THE PRESIDING JUDGE. November. This is so because the constitutional provision on the right to bail under Art. the Supreme Court on a 9-6 vote held that the extraditee is entitled to notice and hearing when a request for extradition by another country is still being evaluated. (BELTRAN VS. on Motion for Reconsideration in the same case. the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scale of justice in favor of the accused and he should be acquitted from the crime charged. The purpose of the bond is to assure the court of the presence of the accused during the trial of his case. RTC 17. his right to due process of law will be violated. THE PRESIDING JUDGE. 93. This is so because of the possibility of flight 92. 2007) 91. the extraditee was allowed bail. (EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ VS.

if the accused does not object to such a procedure. a lawyer’s duty. the order of trial may be modified accordingly. JR. Sandiganbayan.. 63 SCRA 546.l986) In fact it should be noted that under the newly adopted 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sec. It is discernible in [a] his refusal to cross-examine Oleby Nadera (the complainant for RAPE). During arraignment. (PEOPLE VS. he must be present. 324 SCRA 490) 96. If the accused has the right to be present during the trial of his case. Pepito. if he desires.(PEOPLE VS. 96 SCRA 322) However. Rule 119)the said procedure is now expressly sanctioned. Manolo Brotonel of the PAO cannot go unnoticed. and [c] his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but to inform the accused of his right to do so. Hence. when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense. However. promulgation of the decision and when he is to be identified by the witnesses for the prosecution. Judge. DE LOS SANTOS." 95. must not be taken lightly. (Alejandro vs. Thus: "However. Military Commission. 355 SCRA 415) 94. he can validly waive his presence after arraignment when he state in open court or in an affidavit that whenever a witness mentions his name during the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence. (Aquino vs. especially that of a defense counsel. only the faithful performance by counsel of his duty towards his client can give meaning and substance to the accused’s right to due process and to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. (Sacay vs. he admits that he is the one being referred to. 3e). NADERA. such would violate the right of the accused to presumption of innocence. 125 SCRA 269) . It must be performed with all the zeal and vigor at his command to protect and safeguard the accused’s fundamental rights. can he also refuse to appear during the hearings of his case? No.76 presumption of innocence. May the court reverse the order of trial in a criminal case? No. What is the extent of the obligation of a counsel de oficio for an accused in a criminal case? While an accused may be given a counsel de oficio which is not a lawyer of his own choice because he could not afford the services of a de parte lawyer. P vs. The cavalier attitude of Atty. To be required to present his evidence first would be making him prove his innocence and not the State proving his guilt. July 10. [b] the manner in which he conducted Maricris Nadera’s cross-examination. then a reverse order of trial is allowed by the Rules.

77 97. May 20. 98. 2004. as follows: Length of the delay. unreasonable delays like failure to decide a complaint against the respondent for more than three (3) years from the time all the pleadings were filed violates the respondent’s right to a speedy disposition of his case and the case must be dismissed. There is no violation of the right to speedy disposition of his case because petitioner failed to assert his constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case. May the right to speedy disposition of cases be invoked for the dismissal of cases pending before quasi-judicial bodies like the Office of the Ombudsman? Yes. assertion or failure to assert such rights by the accused and the prejudice caused by the delay. it was held that the right to speedy trial is violated only if the proceedings were attended by vexatious. When may “speedy trial” be raised by the accused to cause the dismissal of his case? What kind of delays must occur before the same could be invoked? In JAIME BERNAT VS. 289 SCRA 721. 2. Particular regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The factors to consider in determining whether or not such right has been violated: 1. capricious and oppressive delays. Reasons for the delay. length of delay. such delay did not amount to violation of petitioner’s right to speedy trial considering that such delay was not attributable to the prosecution. (DUTERTE VS. 269 SCRA 301) The determination of whether an accused had been denied the right to speedy trial depends on the surrounding circumstances of each case. and Prejudiced caused by the delay. As held in the case of DE LA PENA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN. During the 8-year period prior to April 19. Although it took about 8 years before the trial of this case was resumed. ANGCHANGCO VS. reasons for such delay. SANDIGANBAYAN. (ii) Speedy Trial Act of 1998. OMBUDSMAN. and 3. SANDIGANBAYAN. The determination of whether the delays are of said nature is relative and cannot be based on mere mathematical reckoning of time. petitioner did not complain about the long delay in deciding his case. 2002. certain factors shall be considered and balanced to determine if there is delay. The authority of the Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his . Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused.

(Sales vs. 2000). 159 SCRA 426) 101. 140863. This is so because it is the body of the Information that is binding. INC. (P vs. 346 SCRA 108.R. the accused was duly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him. 2000. As such. CA. 337 SCRA 227.( P vs. 99. AUG. Even if the Information was captioned “For Homicide” only but the body of the Information alleges “treachery” or “evident premeditation” and the same was read to the accused. 164 SCRA 717. 136757 – 58. G. HOW. not the caption thereof and therefore. JR. 64 SCRA 610) If the witness was partially examined. SANDIGANBAYAN. 3. Was the failure of the court to have a sign language expert to inform the accused who is a deaf-mute of the contents of the criminal information fatal to the validity of the proceedings which resulted in the conviction of the said accused? Yes because the accused was denied of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It likewise violated the right of confrontation on the part of the accused. (Ortigas. COURT MARTIAL. SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT. 2000. he could be convicted of Murder. BLANCO VS. NOV. G. 99 SCRA 92) 102. NO. 22. NO. What are the requisites of a valid trial in absentia? May an accused who jumped bail after arraignment be validly convicted by the trial court? The requisites of a valid trial in absentia are the following: . 140188. What is the effect of the testimony of a witness who did not return to court for his cross examination? How about if there is only partial cross-examination? A witness who did not return to court for his cross-examination would render his entire testimony inadmissible for being hearsay. Crisologo. HON. AUG. 7 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998. (SUMBANG VS. GEN. Seneris.R. NOS.R. only the portion of his direct testimony where he was cross-examined shall be admissible as evidence. Resavaga. P vs. May an accused in a “Homicide” case be convicted of “Murder” without violating his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him? Yes. Lufthansa. 150 SCRA 653) 100. 338 SCRA 51. vs. G. the entire proceedings is null and void and another trial be conducted in the presence of a sign language expert to inform the accused of the proceedings. 27.78 subordinates even after an information has already been filed in court does not present an irreconcilable conflict with the 30-day period prescribed in Sec.

it applies only to “testimonial compulsion. 23 Phil. (Chavez vs. BANIHIT. Does the right against self-incrimination applicable to civil and administrative cases also? . 24 SCRA 663) 105. his right to subpoena witnesses and the production of evidence will not be violated since the hospital could produce said records and another physician could testify on the contents thereof. and • The accused’s absence [during the trial] is unjustifiable. Tang Teng. Florendo. 154 SCRA 610. to what kind of evidence does the right against selfincrimination applies? Generally. forcing a person to give a sample of his urine to determine whether a woman is pregnant (Villaflor vs. Summers. Such would violate the right of the accused against selfincrimination and if such happened. Further. pants or shirt does not fall under the above proscription.R. Fajardo vs. Hon. Likewise forcing one to try a pair of shoes. 100801. 570) 107. Generally. PEOPLE VS. CA. the right against self-incrimination will be violated by said act. May an accused compel the trial court to issue subpoena to a Physician who is already working in the United States to testify on his treatment of the accused? Would the failure of said witness to appear and testify for the accused violates his right to subpoena witnesses and the production of evidence in his favor? No. 25. Such witness is beyond the jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts. Though the same does not require testimonial compulsion. (Beltran vs. 41 Phil. 339 SCRA 86. 50 Phil. CONTINENTE. AUG. 98 SCRA 514) 104. Samson.” As such. whether a person is suffering from sexually transmitted disease (US vs.79 • The accused was duly arraigned.R.02. • The accused was notified of the hearing. (Cavili vs. AUG. 106. 25. 2000) does not violate the person’s right against selfincrimination. May the accused be presented by the prosecution as the latter’s witness? No. 132045. the proceedings shall be null and void. How about forcing a person to give a sample of his handwriting?. G. Garcia. 145) or under the influence of prohibited drugs (PEOPLE VS. 62). This is so because it involves the use of the intelligence of the person. 2000. 103. NOS. NO. 339 SCRA 1. G.

it was her obligation to transcribe the same. [2] filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. 110. 111. Gavarra. 647). Intino. [3] the accused was validly arraigned.80 Yes but unlike in criminal cases where the accused could not be presented by the prosecution and his right not to take the witness stand is absolute. the Supreme Court held in ECHEGARAY VS. This is so because the testimony was taken while she was still in the government and as such. Atencio. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE that death through Lethal Injection is the most humane way of implementing the death penalty. September 26. 355 SCRA 1) 112. an adverse party in a civil or administrative cases may be presented by the other party but could refuse to answer only if the question propounded calls for an incriminatory answer. 155 SCRa 327. may the dismissal result in double jeopardy? Yes in two (2) instances. having received her salary for the day when the testimony was taken. 108. If the dismissal was with the express consent of the accused. 64 SCRA 131) 109. P vs. 170 SCRA 107 that it was merely suspended. or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. Is death as a penalty a cruel or unuasual punishment? No. 155 SCRA 113. (Aclaracion vs. (PEOPLE VS. Estoista. . and [4] the accused was convicted or acquitted. P vs. Gatmaitan. It is only when the punishment is shocking to the conscience of the community and disproportionate to the offense charged that the penalty becomes cruel and unusual. 1988 it held in People vs. May a court stenographer who had resigned from the government be compelled to transcribe her notes under pain of contempt without violating her right against involuntary servitude? Yes. 156 SCRA 242. (P vs. 93 Phil. In fact. P vs. Masangkay. What are the requisites before an accused may validly invoke double jeopardy? There is double jeopardy when there is: [1] valid complaint of information. ALMARIO. Is the Death Penalty already abolished by the Constitution? 1987 While the Supreme Court answered the same in the affirmative in the cases of P vs. Munoz.

the government can no longer charge the accused of the same crime under the Revised Penal Code since double jeopardy has set in. In these two (2) instances. if the dismissal is through the instance of the accused or with his express consent. 244 SCRA 202 and PEOPLE VS. The Fiscal filed another information based on the Revised Penal Code. It must be pointed out. Since the accused was already arraigned in the 1 st information before the MTC which has jurisdiction over the same and the case was . 255 SCRA 238 . If an act is punished by law and an ordinance. Is he correct? Yes. the Fiscal filed a 3rd information for grave coercion before the MTC.81 As a general rule. the SC reversed the dismissal of the criminal case by the trial court based on “speedy trial” since the same was not predicated “on the clear right of the accused to speedy trial. RELOVA. The accused was charged of grave coercion before the MTC and was duly arraigned. the case was dismissed because it was found out that the same has prescribed because it was filed after more than 60 days. After arraignment. ALMARIO. Another information for the same offense was filed with the RTC which was likewise dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction. this rule admits of two (2) exceptions: 1) the motion to dismiss is based on insufficiency of evidence. acquittal or conviction in one shall bar prosecution from the other. If the accused was charged of “theft of electricity” based on the City Ordinance of Batangas and not based on the Revised Penal Code and later on the case is dismissed by the judge due to the fact that the crime has prescribed. that in PEOPLE VS. 355 SCRA 1) -double jeopardy has set in. however. there is no double jeopardy. TAMPAL. 113. the correct description of what happened is that the accused was “acquitted” and not “the case was dismissed with his consent”. As such. The accused pleaded double jeopardy. However. LEVISTE. and 2) the motion to dismiss is based on the denial of the accused’s right to speedy trial. 148 SCRA 292) 114. Has double jeopardy set in? Yes. (PEOPLE VS. (PEOPLE VS. The accused was charged of theft of electricity based on the City Ordinance of Batangas City. The Judge dismissed it without any motion form the accused because the case is allegedly outside the MTC’s jurisdiction.” It is only when there is a clear violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial that the dismissal results in double jeopardy.

Judge Hernando. May the prosecution appeal the acquittal since the evidence presented was not really a newly-discovered evidence but a forgotten one and that even assuming that the same is a newly-discovered evidence. the accused was acquitted. he has to be re-arraigned for him to enter a plea of “not guilty” in order that he could be validly acquitted. 116. After presenting his evidence to prove “incomplete self-defense”. it was not sufficient to overturn the evidence of guilt as shown by the prosecution’s evidence. 115. HON. SEPT. 2000). the Supreme Court held that indeed. an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy. However. he was acquitted. The accused was convicted of frustrated murder. statutes and cognate jurisprudence. 340 SCRA 207. The accused was arraigned of homicide and entered a plea of guilty but prayed that he be given the chance to prove incomplete selfdefense which the court granted. Court. double jeopardy has set in and the government could no longer appeal the decision. (Mazo vs. 13. Sandiganbayan. NO. as in Galman vs. it was insufficient to overturn the evidence of guilt as proven by the prosecution. Within 15 days from promulgation. appeal would put the accused in double jeopardy. There was no valid arraignment.82 subsequently dismissed without his express consent. . In the case of P vs. the court acquitted him because what was allegedly proven by him was complete self-defense. then double jeopardy has set in. Mun. So even if the court obviously erred in the appreciation of the evidence resulting in a decision of acquittal instead of conviction. whether it happens at the trial court of a judgment of acquittal brought before the Supreme Court on certiorari cannot be had unless there is a finding of mistrial. though the decision was erroneous. As mandated by the Constitution.R. G. 127444. However. In this case. VELASCO. if the accused was the one who appealed the decision of the CFI convicting him of homicide (though he was charged of murder). 113 SCRA 217) 117. May the accused validly invoke double jeopardy if the Prosecutor moves for the reinstatement of the case for him to present the evidence of the prosecution? No because one of the requisites of double jeopardy is missing. he filed a Motion for New Trial based on a “newly-discovered evidence” which was granted by the court. This is so because his plea was one of guilty and yet. After the presentation of the alleged “newly-discovered evidence”. the evidence presented was not “newly-discovered evidence” and that assuming it to be so. May the government appeal a judgment of acquittal or for the increase of the penalty imposed? No since double jeopardy has set in. (PEOPLE VS. 108 SCRA 121.

which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. 46 O. G. which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when committed.G. 712. the same will be subject to a complete re-examination of the evidence on record. 1999) 120. b. P vs. No. Melo vs.. and P vs. 128096. 268. P. THE SANDIGANBAYAN. (PANFILO M. c. Buling. 260. 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. ET AL. JR. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 182 SCRA 601. 73 Phil. When may the “ex-post facto law” rule be invoked? Only if the law sought to be applied is a “criminal law or penal”. Tarok. vs. the same must be one— a. What is the "Supervening Fact Doctrine." It simply provides that an accused’s conviction shall not be a bar to another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former complaint or information when the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge or that the facts constituting the graver charge became known only or were discovered after a plea was entered in the former complaint or information. 85 Phil. the same may not be invoked as when the questioned law involves the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which is not a penal law. What are the different forms of ex-post facto law? In order that a law is an ex post facto law. every law which. People. in relation to the offense or its consequences. Villasis. which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed. P vs.. 76 SCRA 462. LACSON VS.R. 107 Phil. January 20. P vs. 121 SCRA 637 119. 766. This is so because if the accused appeals the decision. ROMEO ACOP & FRANCISCO ZUBIA. (Section 7.83 the appellate court may convict him of murder if the evidence warrants and that the lower court mis-appreciated the evidence. Adil. City Court of Manila. d. . It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. e. 118. RA 8249 is not a penal law. Otherwise. and punishes such action. P vs. Rule 117. Tac-an. alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage. which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required a the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant. Ex post facto law prohibits the retrospectivity of penal laws.

BARRIOS. PAMARAN. or a proclamation of amnesty (KAY VILLEGAS KAMI. ******************************************* .84 f. 211 SCRA 241). g. PEOPLE VS. TAN VS. 35 SCRA 429. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. 190 SCRA 686. that which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful. SANDIGANBAYAN. MEJIA VS. 160 SCRA 457. such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful