Pre-week reviewer in Political Law by Atty.

Larry Gacayan

Pre-Bar Quizzer in Political Law
(Doctrnal

Rulings, Requisites and Definitions[1]) October 2011 Edition

Prepared by

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

BAR REVIEWER
(Political/Constitutional Law)

CPRS BAR REVIEW CENTER Zamboanga City, Iloilo City, Davao City, Cagayan de Oro City and Baguio City EXCELLENT BAR REVIEW CENTER Cebu City and Baguio City COSMOPOLITAN REVIEW CENTER (CRC) UC, Baguio City POWERHAUS LAW REVIEW CENTER Baguio City, Santiago City, Isabela, San Fernando City (LU) Tagbilaran City & Dipolog City UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER

Dagupan City HOLY TRINITY BAR REVIEW CENTER General Santos City
PART I

POLITICAL LAW 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 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 DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, 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; 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.

As an initiative upon a petition. G. No. No agent or representative can sign for and on their behalf. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering that possibility. (SINCO. It may result in the rewriting whether the whole constitution. Thus.327. THE PROPOSAL MUST BE EMBODIED IN A PETITION. 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. PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW) . 505 SCRA 160. or the greater portion of it.6. or dangerous. 7. 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. 2. on the other hand. 2006. 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. October 25. the following requisites must be present: 1. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO . Vicente. or perhaps some of its important provisions. “Revision” is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. 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.952 registered voters vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. envisages a change or only a few specific provisions. the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. 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. “Amendment” of the Constitution. The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. together with 6. or misleading in their effect. But whatever results the revision may produce.R. 174153. Distinguish “Revision” from “amendment” of the Constitution.

regardless of their breadth and dimensions. OR [2] A constitutional Convention” under Section 1. (TOLENTINO VS. form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. I of the Constitution which states that ―the waters around. What are the elements of a “state”? As held in COLLECTOR VS. 42 SCRA 23. 30 SCRA 649. 1. the elements of a state are. Art. The word “or” in the provision “…Congress. May Congress propose amendments to the Constitution while at the same time calling for a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution? Yes. 21 SCRA 774) 9. COMELEC. CUGCO. NACOCO. Are the two-fold function of government as enumerated by the Supreme Court in BACANI VS. territory 3. between and connecting the islands of the archipelago. What is the archipelagic doctrine or archipelago theory? It is the 2nd sentence of Section 1. 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. 100 Phil. government 12. Art. (GONZALES VS. 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. not piecemeal. COMELEC. CAMPOS RUEDA.8. XVII also means “AND”. 41 SCRA 702) 10. This is due to complexities of the changing society. 468 (Ministrant [merely directory] and Constituent [Mandatory] Functions) still applicable today? No more as held in ACCFA VS. the two-fold function of the government as classified by President Wilson is no longer relevant as a result of the changing .‖ 11. upon a vote of ¾ of all its members. sovereignty 4. people 2.

and which is denominated a government of paramount force. 13. What are the three (3) kinds of de facto government? As held in CO KIM CHAM VS. the rightful legal governments and maintains itself against the will of the latter. Great Britain. VALDEZ TAN KEH.society wherein what are considered merely ministrant functions of the State before are now considered constituent . b. is considered de jure if it is already accepted by the family of nations or other countries like the United States. 14. and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government. as the cases of Castine. Germany. Japan. or usurps. A government formed as a result of a people‘s revolution. What kind of government was the “Aquino Government” after former President Marcos left Malacanang for Hawaii due to the EDSA Revolution in February 1986. The first. 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. that its existence is maintained by active military power with the territories. which was reduced to British possession in the war of 1812. the three (3) kinds of de facto governments are: a. "But there is another description of government. c. but only with the second and third kinds of de facto governments. by force or by the voice of the majority. in Maine. called also by publicists a government de facto. or vice versa. Mexico. and others. and . 113. such as the government of England under the Commonwealth. but which might. occupied during the war with Mexico. first by Parliament and later by Cromwell as Protector. 75 Phil. and Tampico. is that government that gets possession and control of. by the troops of the United States. the same is de jure. perhaps. As held in In Re: SATURNINO BERMUDEZ. 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. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1). 145 SCRA 160. be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force.

International Law. not its disappearance. the . 88 SCRA 195).) 16. What is the “incorporation theory” or the “Incorporation Clause” of the Constitution? It is the principle embodied in Section 2. EDU." The opinion was at pains to point out though that even then. 15. (MEJOFF VS. 53 SCRA 476 and COMMISSIONER VS. 83 Phil 171. which shall prevail? In the case of 4) AGUSTIN VS. 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”. JALANDONI. Commissioner. 90 Phil. and AGUSTIN VS. What is the postliminy theory or jus postliminium? When a foreign power occupies a state and exercises the powers of government. 143 SCRA 397) 17. (Cited in Reagan vs. 615.125 SCRA 553.(2). the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right shall prevail. What is the doctrine of sovereignty as “auto limitation”? In the succinct language of Jellinek. do not become responsible. for those acts. KURODA VS. GOZO. 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. EDU. it "is the property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction. PEOPLE VS. ROBERTSON. may refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable competence. that while it exists it necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who. though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Though Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations prohibits rallies within 500 feet of any foreign embassy. if it chooses to." A state then. there is at the most diminution of jurisdictional rights. or wrongdoers. 70. In case of conflict between a constitutional right of a citizen and a generally accepted principle of international law. p. by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force. (Taylor. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS. BAGATSING. 88 SCRA 195 REYES VS. 18.

churches. directly and exclusively used for religious. 13. 29 . non-profit cemeteries…actually. or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. or to any penal institution. 19. shall forever be allowed. VI. 66 Phil. 4. mosques. XIV.same shall give way to the constitutional right of the citizens to ―peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of their grievances‖. 5. VI. LAGMAN. 20. ART. 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. ART.(2). III. for the use.. paid. NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL OR POLITICAL RIGHTS. At the option in writing by parents. church. 3(3). directly or indirectly. 3. Sec. No public money or property shall be appropriated. Sec. charitable. ART. IX. ART. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. minister. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship. VI) 5. 28 (3). ART. applied. (NOTE: Religious organizations are also prohibited ion connection with sectoral representatives under Art. religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children in elementary and high schools within the . C. for the benefit. or government orphanage or leprosarium. is assigned to the armed forces. 1. “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. Sec. 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? No as held in PEOPLE VS. without discrimination or preference. or support of any sect. 2(5). Sec. 2. except when such priest. denomination or religion. benefit. Charitable institutions. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. Religious denominations and sects shall not be registered…as political parties.

II. 390 US 629 (1969). As such. Art. [2] territorial integrity. What are the factors to be considered by the Philippines in dealing with other nations? As provided in Section 7 of Art. In its relations with other states the paramount consideration shall be [1] national sovereignty. and [4] the right to self-determination. 21. Is there absolute prohibition for the Philippines to be equipped with nuclear weapons? No. 23.‖ As such. 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. if it is consistent with national interest.regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by religious authorities to which said children belong. ―the Philippines. Is abortion allowed in the Philippines? Section 12. without additional cost to the government. Is “divorce” prohibited by the 1987 Philippine Constitution? : Father Bernas opines that the provision of the Constitution (Section 12. The Philippines shall pursue an independent foreign policy. Art. as stated in Section 8. (Note: In the United States. NEW YORK. II. [3] national interest. II prohibits all forms of abortion except ―therapeutic abortion‖ or when the life of the mother is in danger. as held in the case of GINSBERG VS. 22. This is so because parents could buy said . 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. a Divorce Law to be passed by Congress may or may not be unconstitutional. 23. the same is not prohibited. WADE]) 24. consistent with the national interest. adopts and pursues a policy of freedom from nuclear weapons in its territory. a law prohibiting the sale of ―girlie magazines‖ [bold?) is constitutional and does not violate the above provision. abortion is allowed but only up to the 2nd trimester of the pregnancy [ROE vs. Art.

May the State require parents to enroll their small children only to public schools valid? As held in PIERCE VS. May the State prohibit the teaching of a particular language in any school? No as held in MEYER VS. 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. As held in ACCFA VS. Do we practice the free enterprise system in the Philippines or is it the welfare state concept? Distinguish the two. This is so because under Art. starting from the 1935 document. NEBRASKA. The said doctrine was reiterated in PHILIPPINE COCONUT DESICCATORS VS. They have the right to choose which school is best suited for the development of their children without interference from the State. 26. As such. 268 US 510 (1925). It is the welfare-state concept which is being followed as shown by the constitutional provision on agrarian reform. it is very clear that the government reserves the power to . free enterprise does not call for the removal of ―protective regulations‖ for the benefit of the general public. 30 SCRA 649 “the Philippines never practiced the free enterprise system. SOCIETY OF SISTERS. however. CUGCO. protection to labor… (NOTE. 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. XII. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE CHILDREN ARE NOT MERE CREATURES OF THE STATE. PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY. Sections 6 and 9. 27. and although the present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy. HAVE REPUDIATED laissez faire (or the doctrine of free enterprise) as an economic principle. it nevertheless reserves to the government the power to intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare. that the 1987 Constitution have pr ovisions which provide for ―free enterprise). 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.magazines for their children if they believe the same is already suitable to the understanding of their child. housing. 286 SCRA 109 where it was held that the Philippine Constitutions.

. Unless sooner withdrawn by Resolution of Congress. Art. tonnage and wharfage dues. a private firm sequestered by the government on account of Executive Order No. VI. principle of separation of powers 3. 504 SCRA 704) 28. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS HAVE LIMITED RIGHT TO PRIVACY. What are the constitutionally allowed “delegation of legislative power” by Congress? The permissible delegation of legislative power are. tariff rates. not to mention that such would render nugatory the power of Congress under Section 21. Such act would violate Section 28. non-delegability of legislative powers 29. import and export quotas. 1) Sec. and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose. May the PCGG Commissioners refuse to appear before a Senate Committee conducting alleged irregularities committed by them while sitting in the Board of PHILCOMSAT. The Congress may by law.intervene whenever necessary to promote the general welfare and when the public interest so requires. What Are the limitations to the Congress power to exercise legislative power? The limitations are: 1. 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. IN FACT. GORDON. 23 (2) of Article VI (Emergency powers to the President in case of war or other national emergency. to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. 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. such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof. it cannot pass irrepealable laws 2. Art. 2) Sec. XI of the 1987 Constitution. authorize the President to fix within specified limits. 27-a. II of the Constitution mandating disclosure of all public transactions involving the public interest. and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the government. 28 (2) of Article VI. (SABIO VS. Art. for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as Congress may provide.

3) Delegation to local governments 4) bodies 5) Delegation to the People (Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution and Section 32, Article VI---The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, 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, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters thereof. 30. What is the completeness test? The sufficiency of standard test? As held in PELAEZ VS. AUDITOR GENERAL, 15 SCRA 569: (a) Completeness Test simply means that the law must be complete in itself when it left Congress. It must set forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented by the delegate which is not given any discretion; and (b) Sufficiency of Standards Test simply requires Congress to fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. Some of the standards to guide the delegate are general welfare, public interest, etc. 31. Is it constitutional for the COMELEC to require candidates for all elective offices, including those for President, VP, Senators and members of the House of Representatives to submit a Certification from a government-accredited drug-testing centers that they are free from prohibited drugs before their Certificate of Candidacy is admitted? No, the COMELEC Resolution is unconstitutional. It adds additional qualifications for the President, VOP, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives not required by the Constitution. (PIMENTEL VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161658, November 3, 2008) 31-a. 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 Delegation of Rule-making power to administrative

of complying with the qualifications of a member of the House of Representatives? Yes as held in ANTONIO BENGSON III VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and TEODORO CRUZ, 357 SCRA 545 because Rep. Act No. 2630 provides that ―Any person who had lost his Philippine Citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of the United states, acquired US citizenship, 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. The said Oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship.‖ And he shall still be considered ―natural born‖ Filipino citizen. 32. If the candidate for Congressman is subsequently disqualified for noncompliance of the residence requirement under Art. VI, 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. As held in OCAMPO VS. HOUSE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL and MARIO CRESPO, a.k.a. MARK JIMENEZ, June 15, 2004. 1. There must be a final judgment disqualifying a candidate in order that the votes of a disqualified candidate can be considered ―stray‖. This final judgment must be rendered BEFORE THE ELECTION. This was the ruling in the case of CODILLA VS. DE VENECIA. Hence, when a candidate has not been disqualified by final judgment during the election day he was voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. To do so would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. 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. 2. 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. The said principle was laid down as early as 1912 and reiterated in the cases of LABO VS. COMELEC, ABELLA VS. COMELEC and DOMINO VS. COMELEC.

32-a. In order to validly create an aditional district for Cagayan de Oro City, must the law creating it be first submitted to the people therein in a plebiscite in accordance with Section 10, Art. X of the 1987 Constitution? No, because the creation of another district when the same is warranted as when there is an increase of population justifying the creation of a new district does not create a new or divide a local government unit. (BAGABUYO VS. COMELEC, December 8, 2008) 32-b. In the computation of party-list representatives, is the Veterans Federation Party vs. COMELEC Formula or the Panganiban Formula still applicable? No more because it results in a mathematical impossiblity. To strictly comply with it requiring at least 2% for every sectoral representative to obtain in order to garner 1 seat would require 110% in order that there will be 55 sectoral representatives based on the number of legislative districts. 33. In case of vacancy in the Senate or in the House of Representatives under Section 9 of Article VII, is it automatic for the COMELEC to hold a special election? No, there must be a law passed by Congress appropriating the funds for the said purpose. ( LOZADA vs. COMELEC, 120 SCRA 337) 34. While a Member of Congress is not allowed to appear as counsel for any party in court or before administrative bodies, may he do so as a “stockholder”? No as held in PUYAT vs. DE GUZMAN, 113 SCRA 31. What could not be done directly could not likewise be done indirectly. 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, not as counsel for the corporation. 35. May a court suspend a member of Congress when Section 16 [3], Article VI appears to give such exclusive power to each House only for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of 2/3 of all its members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall mot exceed sixty days?

the former prevails and only CURATIVE LEGISLATION COULD CHANGE THE SAME. If the enrolled bill provides that it is urea formaldehyde is the one exempt from tax. the journal will prevail since what is left is no longer considered an ―enrolled bill. GIMENEZ. [Justice Isagani Cruz]) 38. NOT JUDICIAL LEGISLATION. and not urea and formaldehyde which appears in the journal which was really approved. then.‖ (NOTE. which shall prevail? As held in U. 7 SCRA 347. 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? 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. SANDIGANBAYAN. 729.Yes. vs. if the President of the Philippines. In case of conflict between the journal and the enrolled bill. 36. 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. however. the journal prevails over extraneous evidence like accounts of newspaper journalists and reporters as to what the proceedings all about. that the journal prevails over the enrolled bill on all matters required to be entered in the journals. In case of conflict between the entries in a journal of both Houses of Congress and extraneous evidence like affidavits of witnesses. VS. 37. PONS. RA 3019 applies to all government officers and employees. 34 Phil. . this was the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of MIRIAM DEFENSOR and REP. 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. the number of representatives of the different parties in the Commission on Appointments may also be changed in proportion to their actual memberships. PAREDES VS. which shall prevail? In CASCO PHIL.S. However. it was held by the Supreme Court that The enrolled bill prevails over the journal.

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. Tan. VI or during the ―question hour‖. Such would be a travesty of justice. . 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. (BONDOC VS. 87 Phil. Art. September 26. 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. 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. 29. (SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES. represented by SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON. if the invitation to appear is based on Section 22. It would also violate the right to information on the part of the citizens. If the appearance is due to the power of Congress to investigate in aid of legislation under Section 21. except only to vote for a partymate who is involved in the protest. then the President may validly demand that they must get her consent first because such appearance is DISCRETIONARY. However. 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. May a political party (LDP) replace its representative in the House of Representatives Electoral Commission who. PINEDA. ET AL. NAZARENO.. Art.(NOTE: In Cunanan vs. in a preliminary voting in a protest case against an LDP Member. VS. 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. “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.” 40. VI. 1991) 39.

ET AL. Presidential communications privilege applies to decision-making of the President while. While a Member of the Cabinet may be compelled to appear before Congress under Section 21.[2][28] In United States v. the other is the deliberative process privilege.R.‖ Apparently..” Accordingly. one is the presidential communications privilege and. 488 SCRA 1) 40-a.” In In Re: Sealed Case.” It thus considered presidential communications as ―presumptively privileged. April 20.‖ 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. Art. The former pertains to “communications.EXEC. 40-b. they are characterized by marked distinctions. Who are covered by this rule? The Nixon and post-Watergate cases established the broad contours of the presidential communications privilege. It ruled that there are two (2) kinds of executive privilege. recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.[3][29] the U. the presumption is founded on the ―President‟s generalized interest in confidentiality. No. VI of the Constitution. 16977.S.S. Nixon.” The latter includes „advisory opinions.[4][30] the U. Explain the “executive privilege” doctrine. 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‖. Distinguish the “presidential communications privilege” and the “deliberative process privilege” which comprise said “executive privilege”. documents or other materials that reflect presidential decision-making and deliberations and that the President believes should remain confidential. 2006 . SEC. . G. EDUARDO ERMITA. 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.

. and covers final and post-decisional materials as well as predeliberative ones[5][31] As a consequence. In Re: Sealed Case confines the privilege only to White House Staff that has ―operational proximity‖ to direct presidential decision making. v. The Court conceded that functionally those officials were performing a task directly related to the President‘s pardon power. Inc. however.[9][35] and information related to pending investigations. Unlike the deliberative process privilege. There. the lesser protections of the deliberative process privilege would suffice.‖ such as commander-inchief power. 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. That privilege was.[8][34] identity of government informers in some circumstances. congressional or judicial negation of the presidential communications privilege is always subject to greater scrutiny than denial of the deliberative process privilege. 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. 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. a non-delegable.[10][36] An area where the privilege is highly revered is in foreign relations. Thus. etc. The majority concluded that. The first is rooted in the constitutional principle of separation of power and the President‘s unique constitutional role. the presidential communications privilege applies to documents in their entirety. core-presidential function.the deliberative process privilege. while the presidential decision involved is the exercise of the President‘s pardon power.341 withheld documents. to decision-making of executive officials. the second on common law privilege. the sole-authority to receive ambassadors and other public officers. the power to grant pardons and reprieves. Department of Justice[7][33] tested the In Re: Sealed Case principles. Turning on who are the officials covered by the presidential communications privilege. the power to negotiate treaties. the privilege is meant to encompass only those functions that form the core of presidential authority. found insufficient to justify the confidentiality of the 4.[6][32] The situation in Judicial Watch.. Courts ruled early that the Executive has a right to withhold documents that might reveal military or state secrets. appointment and removal power.

PEA. to wit: 1) The protected communication must relate to a ―quintessential and nondelegable presidential power.[12][39] there is also a recognition of the confidentiality of Presidential conversations. Nixon. the information relating to these powers may enjoy greater confidentiality than others. and discussions in closed-door Cabinet meetings. this Court held that there is a ―governmental privilege against public disclosure with respect to state secrets regarding military. diplomatic and other security matters. indeed. In Re Sealed Case and Judicial Watch. Ermita. Consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers. In Chavez v. the President is the repository of the commander-in-chief. Under our Constitution. especially.‖ In Chavez v. The above cases. the communications elicited by the three (3) questions are covered by the presidential communications privilege. the bases are presidential communications privilege and executive privilege on matters relating to diplomacy or foreign relations. First.[13][40] appointing. correspondences.[14][41] pardoning. 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. somehow provide the elements of presidential communications privilege.Majority of the above jurisprudence have found their way in our jurisdiction.e. Using the above elements. In Senate v. PCGG[11][38]. This authority of the President to enter into . such that the information sought ―likely contains important evidence‖ and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.[15][42] and diplomatic[16][43] powers.[17][44] Simply put. the communications relate to a ―quintessential and non-delegable power‖ of the President. As may be gleaned from the above discussion. the concept of presidential communications privilege is fully discussed. the power to enter into an executive agreement with other countries. we are convinced that. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in ―operational proximity‖ with the President. such as the area of military and foreign relations. i. 3) The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need.‖ 2) The communication must be authored or ―solicited and received‖ by a close advisor of the President or the President himself.

20. the present case‘s distinction with the Nixon case is very evident. but in a legislative inquiry. Under the ―operational proximity‖ test.S. the communications are ―received‖ by a close advisor of the President. Jr. Nov. Court was quick to ―limit the scope of its decision.[18][45] Second. And third. Senate v. 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. This is the reason why the U. (NOTE: In Nixon.” Unlike in Nixon. Furthermore.‖ 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. 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. In Nixon. not in a criminal proceeding. diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets.‖ However.) We see no dispute on this. Ermita stressed that the validity of the claim of executive privilege depends not only on the ground invoked but. In this regard. It is settled in United States v. vs. "The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be . 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. being a member of President Arroyo‘s cabinet. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee. on the procedural setting or the context in which the claim is made. In the present case. Nixon[19][48] that ―demonstrated. specific need for evidence in pending criminal trial‖ outweighs the President‘s ―generalized interest in confidentiality. In Bengzon. petitioner can be considered a close advisor. also. 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. the information here is elicited. absolute or unlimited.executive agreements without the concurrence of the Legislature has traditionally been recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. in Nixon. 41. the President did not interpose any claim of need to protect military. it was held that ―the power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation is not. 1991. May a person validly refuse to honor an invitation to appear before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee in connection with its alleged invest igation “in aid of legislation”? Yes.

Order No." It follows then that the rights of persons under the Bill of Rights must be respected. No. Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to "punish" those investigated are indefensible. But broad as is this power of inquiry.respected. 5. No inquiry is an end in itself. bills authorizing increase of the public debt. 1987. G. 1 regarding their privilege not to attend such hearings is unconstitutional. 1 provides that they should not be questioned regarding their activities as such? No. VI and Section 1. if the person invited is already an accused before the Sandiganbayan or facing a case in the Ombudsman in connection with a subject matter related to the House or Senate inquiry. it must be related to and in furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress. These are functions of the executive and judicial departments of government.R. The right to information under Art. It violates Section 28. 41-a. May the PCGG Chairman and commissioners refuse to attend inquiries in ad of legislation being done by the Senate because Executive Order No. As such. III. What are the bills that must exclusively originate from the House of Representatives? Under Section 24. revenue or tariff bills. but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. In NEGROS ORIENTAL II ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE VS. 72492. VI. Section 21. Art. 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. 155 SCRA 421. bills of local application. This is so because the Senate is allowed to ―propose . Secretary of Finance. Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. the Supreme Court held that such power was not delegated by Congress to local government units. Art. II. 42. (NOTE: In Tolentino vs. the provision of Exec. Nov. including the right to due process and the right not to be compelled to testify against one's self. Art. it is not unlimited. XI or the accountability of public officers. then he could validly refuse to attend to said hearing. Art. All appropriations. 41-b. not from the House of Representatives. SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD OF DUMAGUETE CITY. and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of representatives. the Supreme Court held that the E-VAT Law is constitutional even if the same was the VERSION which came from the Senate.

not merely to implement it. What is the so-called “executive impoundment”? It means that although an item of appropriation is not vetoed by the President. and credit facilities to qualified beneficiaries as proposed and identified by said Senators and Congressmen. 235 SCRA 506) 45. the Speaker of the house of Representatives. [1] authority to impound given to him by Congress. (L. MOON & CO.38) 46. he however refuses for whatever reason. he will be violating the doctrine of separation of powers because by doing so. 43 Phil. Otherwise. the President of the Senate. It is the failure to spend or obligate budget authority of any type. and [3] the Faithful execution clause of the Constitution. ENRIQUEZ. 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. (PHILCONSA VS.) 43. The President of the Philippines. to spend funds made possible by Congress. the President. VS.amendments‖ to bills which must exclusively originate from the House of Representatives. mandates the “ADOPTION OF A NATIONAL COMPUTERIZED IDENTIFICATION REFERENCE SYSTEM” and appropriating funds therefore?Is this within his “executive power”? . the Chief justice of the Supreme Court. by Administrative Order. by law. and the heads of the constitutional commissions may. May the President refuse to enforce a law on the ground that in his opinion it is unconstitutional? No. either expressly or impliedly. be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their respective appropriations. [2] the executive power drawn from his power as Commander-in-chief. he will be arrogating unto himself the power to interpret the law.S.‖ 44. HARRISON. purchase of ambulances and computers and other priority projects and activities. however. Proponents of impoundment have invoked at least three (3) principal sources of authority of the President. 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.

G. which is supposed to be exercised by the President. July 23. another resolution dated January 24.. What is the “totality test” used by the Supreme Court in holding that former President Joseph Estrada resigned as President on January 20. affects the life and liberty of every Filipino citizens and foreign residents and therefore. not by an Administrative Order issued by the President. 2001. Jr. and the Resolution dated February 7. Prescinding from the foregoing precepts. No. is concerned with the work of applying policies and enforcing orders as determined by proper governmental organs. AO 308 involves a subject that is not appropriate to be covered by an Administrative Order. ET AL.R. 49.No as held by the Supreme Court in BLAS OPLE VS. it is supposed to be a law passed by Congress that implements it. Administrative Power. the AO establishes a system of identification that is all-encompassing in scope. 127685. RUBEN TORRES. 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 . 47. It enables the President to fix a uniform standard of administrative efficiency and check the official conduct of his agents. President of the Philippines‖ which was passed on January 24. 2001 ―confirming President Arroyo‘s nomination of Senator Teopisto Guingona. how did she succeed? Resignation or permanent disability of former President Estrada? 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. as Vice President of the Philippines‖. 48. 1998. THE TOTALITY OF PRIOR. CONTEMPORANEOUS AND POSTERIOR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BEARING MATERIAL RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE. 2007? THIS IS THE TOTALITY TEST. Is President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo a de jure or a de facto President? If de jure. 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. her government is de jure. The subject of AO 308 therefore is beyond the power of the President to issue and it is a usurpation of legislative power. An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of the government. 2001 ―expressing full support to the assumption into office by VP Arroyo as President of the Philippines‖.

ad interim appointments are extended only during the recess of Congress. While both are effective upon acceptance. et al. other public ministers and consuls. or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain.. EXEC. 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. and other officers are vested in him in this Constitution. 50. SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA. The essence of an appointment in an acting capacity is its temporary nature. AQUILINO PIMENTEL. vs. the President must necessarily appoint an alter ego of her choice as acting secretary before the permanent appointee of her choice could assume office. Art. He must be of the President‘s confidence and provided that the temporary appointment does 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. Congress. Yes provided the temporary appointments of cabinet members do not exceed one (1) year. 472 SCRA 587) 1. whereas acting appointments may . et al. Section 15. In case of vacancy in an office occupied by an alter ego of the President. through a law cannot impose on the President the obligation of automatically appointing the Undersecretary as her alter ego.8. Art. such as the office of a department secretary. VII which are the heads of the executive departments. 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. There is a need to distinguish ad interim appointments and appointments in an acting capacity. The temporary appointments are valid. 51. 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. ambassadors.. (SEN. 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 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.. bureaus and offices. Acting appointments are a way of temporarily circumventing the need of confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Torres. 53. "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. April 19. 2006 & June 20. he has undisputed jurisdiction to affirm. supra. ad interim appointments are submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation or rejection. (KILUSANG MAYO UNO VS. acting appointments are not submitted to the Commission on appointments. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed. or even reverse any order of the Secretary of Natural Resources and other Cabinet Secretaries. Under our constitutional set-up. 55.be extended any time that there is a vacancy. Distinguish it from power of supervision. ET AL. 52. What is the “take care power” of the President of the Philippines? It is the power of the President under Section 17. What is the power of control of the President. Art. VII which provides that The President shall have control of all the executive departments . The Office of the Executive Secretary is an auxillary unit which assists the President. 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. Where the Executive Secretary acts . Moreover. (MONDANO VS." "Supervision" on the other hand means "overseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. the Executive Secretary acts for and in behalf of the President: and by authority of the President. 2006) But not for a national ID system which includes civilians as held in Ople vs. modify. SILVOSA) 54. VII of the Constitution. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA. 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.

Pano. nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function. in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen. May 3. 2006. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO. During the suspension of the privilege of the writ. 21 SCRA 895). the grounds are only invasion and rebellion WHEN THE PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES IT. nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies. Previously. vs. 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. 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. nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.. May the President under the 1987 Constitution validly issue decrees after declaring a state of national emergency. AS PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. otherwise. there is a definite period for the said suspension unlike before and more importantly. such would be considered ―political question‖ which is beyond the review powers of the courts. 56. No. et Al VS. DAVID. G. he shall be released. the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof. such acts of the President may be reviewed not only by the Supreme Court but also the Congress of the Philippines. RANDOLF S.. Likewise. 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 Supreme Court may review.R. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution. (LacsonMagallanes Co. any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within 3 days. 57. and must promulgate its decision thereon within 30 days from its filing. it was held that in declaring a state of national emergency. 171396. et al. Inc. President Arroyo did not only rely ."by authority of the President" his decision is that of the President.

59. the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved (Lacson vs. What are the requisites of judicial review? Courts may exercise the power of judicial review only when the following requisites are present: first. May 27. . 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. Courts will decide cases.‖ To be sure. third. the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of the case itself. second. Perez. 152774. the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity. 147780. otherwise moot and academic. Romulo). invasion or rebellion. 2001. 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. courts decline jurisdiction over such case[21] or dismiss it on ground of mootness. the exercise of emergency powers. a provision calling on the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence.‖ Legislative power is peculiarly within the province of the Legislature. 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. when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench. Article XII. if: first. 58. 429 SCRA 736). This requires a delegation from Congress. May 10. there must be an actual case or controversy. Generally.on Section 18. No. there is a grave violation of the Constitution (Province of Batangas vs. Section 1. such as the taking over of privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest. the bar. Likewise. Romulo. G. second. The “moot and academic‖ principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the courts in resolving a case. No. and . 2004.[20] so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. petitioners have to raise a question of unconstitutionality. is also unconstitutional. 357 SCRA 756). a provision on the State‘s extraordinary power to take over privately-owned public utility and business affected with public interest. and the public ( Province of Batangas vs. third. She also relied on Section 17. Article VII of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate ―decrees.R.R. and fourth.

fourth, the case is capable of repetition yet evading review (Albaña v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 163302, July 23, 2004, 435 SCRA 98, Acop v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 134855, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 577, Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 159085, February 3, 2004, 421 SCRA 656. ) 60. Define locus standi. Locus standi is defined as ―a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question.‖[22] In private suits, standing is governed by the ―real-parties-in interest‖ rule as contained in Section 2, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It provides that ―every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.‖ Accordingly, the ―realparty-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.‖[23] Succinctly put, the plaintiff‘s standing is based on his own right to the relief sought. 61. What are the tests of locus standi in the Philippines? The original was: [1] If the act involves the disbursement of public funds, mere taxpayer has the capacity to sue and question such act. [2] If it does not involve disbursement of public funds, only those who are ―directly injured‖ by the said law or contract entered into by the government. Case law in most jurisdictions now allows both ―citizen‖ and ―taxpayer‖ standing in public actions. The distinction was first laid down in Beauchamp v. Silk,[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. In the former, the plaintiff is affected by the expenditure of public funds, while in the latter, he is but the mere instrument of the public concern However, to prevent just about any person from seeking judicial interference in any official policy or act with which he disagreed with, and thus hinders the activities of governmental agencies engaged in public service, the United State Supreme Court laid down the more stringent ―direct injury‖ test in Ex Parte Levitt,[25] later reaffirmed in Tileston v. Ullman.[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, he must show that he has sustained a direct injury as a result of that action, and it is not sufficient that he has a general interest common to all members of the public.

This Court adopted the “direct injury” test in our jurisdiction. In People v. Vera,[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, or will sustain direct injury as a result.‖ The Vera doctrine was upheld in a litany of cases, such as, Custodio v. President of the Senate,[28] Manila Race Horse Trainers’ Association v. De la Fuente,[29] Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works[30] and Anti-Chinese League of the Philippines v. Felix.[31] However, being a mere procedural technicality, the requirement of locus standi may be waived by the Court in the exercise of its discretion. This was done in the 1949 Emergency Powers Cases, Araneta v. Dinglasan,[32] where the ―transcendental importance‖ of the cases prompted the Court to act liberally. Such liberality was neither a rarity nor accidental. In Aquino v. Comelec,[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. Indeed, there is a chain of cases where this liberal policy has been observed, allowing ordinary citizens, members of Congress, and civic organizations to prosecute actions involving the constitutionality or validity of laws, regulations and rulings.[34] Thus, the Court has adopted a rule that even where the petitioners have failed to show direct injury, they have been allowed to sue under the principle of ―transcendental importance.‖ Pertinent are the following cases: (1) Chavez v. Public Estates Authority,[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; (2) Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora,[36] wherein the Court held that “given the transcendental importance of the issues involved, 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; (3) Lim v. Executive Secretary,[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, it reiterated its ruling in Bagong Alyansang Makabayan v. Zamora,[38]

that in cases of transcendental importance, the cases must be settled promptly and definitely and standing requirements may be relaxed. By way of summary, the following rules may be culled from the cases decided by this Court. Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are met: 1. the cases involve constitutional issues; 2. for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional; 3. for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the validity of the election law in question; 4. for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early; and 5. for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators. Significantly, recent decisions show a certain toughening in the Court‘s attitude toward legal standing. In Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato,[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, more so where it does not raise any issue of constitutionality. Moreover, it cannot sue as a taxpayer absent any allegation that public funds are being misused. Nor can it sue as a concerned citizen as it does not allege any specific injury it has suffered. In Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Philippines, Inc. v. Comelec,[40] the Court reiterated the ―direct injury‖ test with respect to concerned citizens‘ cases involving constitutional issues. 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.‖ In Lacson v. Perez,[41] the Court ruled that one of the petitioners, Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), is not a real party-in-interest as it had not demonstrated any injury to itself or to its leaders, members or supporters. In Sanlakas v. Executive Secretary,[42] the Court ruled that only the petitioners who are members of Congress have standing to sue, as they claim that the President‘s declaration of a state of rebellion is a usurpation of the emergency powers of Congress, thus impairing their legislative powers . As to petitioners Sanlakas, Partido Manggagawa, and Social Justice Society, the Court declared them to be devoid of standing, equating them with the LDP in Lacson. 62. What is the “take over” provision of the Constitution. May the President validly exercise the same?

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. VII and Section 5. while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress. when the public interest so requires. 63. Article XII . the President has no absolute authority to exercise all the powers of the State under Section 17. 17. during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it. without legislation. rules and regulations without the favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections. Art. however. In times of national emergency. because the courts take no notice thereof. the State may. [2] Pardon is granted to one after conviction (of ordinary crimes) . temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. 642. While the President alone can declare a state of national emergency. Likewise. while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of . the President has no power to point out the types of businesses affected with public interest that should be taken over. As held in BARRIOQUINTO VS. Art. Article VII in the absence of an emergency powers act passed by Congress. he has no power to take over privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. The President cannot decide whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting the take over of privately-owned public utility or business affected with public interest. 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. without legislation. 82 Phil.This is Section 17. (Section 19. In short. which reads: Sec. IX-C)) 64. Distinguish pardon from amnesty. Nor can he determine when such exceptional circumstances have ceased. and it is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. FERNANDEZ.

C.S... State ex rel AnheuserBusch Brewing Ass'n.. Eby. 476. 135 N. Before one may validly apply for executive clemency (pardon or amnesty) he MUST ADMIT HAVING COMMITTED THE ACTS WHICH RESULTED IN HIS IMPRISONMENT. 47 S.) [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.E.. (section 10[6]. 62 N. 247. FACTORAN.. 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. 71 S." and it "in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence" article 36.political offenses. 285. 35 S.February. Burdick vs United States. it abolished or forgives the punishment. 271. 79. Is it required for the person applying for amnesty to admit his guilt before his amnesty application be considered? Yes as held in VERA VS. It is not retrospective. vs. Ct. Ex parte Law.C. It makes no amends for the past. "Since the offense has been established by judicial proceedings. that is.W 52. Blalock. 242. 296. 402. 35 GA. State vs. who has been granted an absolute pardon by the Chief Executive.Y. This rule abandoned the contrary ruling in Barrioquinto vs. 61. a pardon looks to the future. 65. Philippine Constitution. 1989. unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. or the right of suffrage. 59 Law.. 118. generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction.. 403. In re Briggs. Article VII. May a public officer. 497. ed. 170 Mo. 236 U.. N. Revised Penal Code). entitled to automatic reinstatement to her former position without need of a New appointment? No. It does not impose upon the government any obligation to make reparation for what has been suffered. As held in MONSANTO VS. PEOPLE. 267. 66. while amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself.. and for that reason it does ""nor work the restoration of the rights to hold public office. Fernandez. 7 SCRA 152. [3] Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted. that which has been done or suffered while they were in force is presumed to have been rightfully done and . It affords no relief for what has been suffered by the offender.

within 30 days from the end of every quarter of the calendar year. there must be prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. Sec. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Llamas vs. unless appointed again by the appointing authority. Tesoro had in effect agreed that the Governor-General's determination (rather than that of the regular courts of law) that he had breached one of the conditions of his parole by committing adultery while he was conditionally at liberty. What are the requisites before the President or his representatives may validly contract or guarantee foreign loans? Under Section 20. 67. As held in Tesoro vs. Director of Prisons. the President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines subject to the following conditions: a. Further. submit to the Congress a complete report of its . Exec. Art. Orbos.justly suffered. the Monetary Board shall." This would explain why petitioner. Art. 69. in accepting the terms under which the parole had been granted. 1991. 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. GONZALES. 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. b. VII. As held in TORRES VS. May the power of executive clemency applied to administrative cases like the suspension of a Provincial Governor? Yes. VII of the Constitution may be used either in a criminal case or in an administrative case. though pardoned. 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. 15. and no satisfaction for it can be required. cannot be entitled to reinstatement. subject to such limitations as may be provided for by law. 152 SCRA 272. Oct. The word “conviction in Section 19. was binding and conclusive upon him. receive backpay for lost earnings and benefits. 68.

71. and containing other matters as may be provided for by law. expediency and wisdom of a particuar act. ALBA. Or in Gonzales vs. 127 SCRA 6. What is a political question? In ALMARIO VS. 21 SCRA 774 . COMELEC.. 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. the same is political and not justiciable In Sanidad vs. Comelec. not the legality of a particular act. Cuenco. when the crux of the problem deals with the wisdom of an act. it is political). Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act. political questions was defined as questions which are neatly associated with the wisdom. Art. In Tanada vs. . it was defined as a question which deals with the necessity. 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.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. PINEDA) 72. 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. 70. 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. 73 SCRA 333. May judicial power be exercised by the Supreme Court in cases of decisions of the House of Representatives Electoral tribunal since Section 16. 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.

the same shall be decided by the en banc accepted by the latter. proclamation. or regulation is in question. Cases referred to by the division to the banc involving novel questions of law . presidential decree.73. (2) Review. prohibition. international or executive agreement. after approval. t he Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors. the same shall be resolved by the Supreme Court en banc. dismissal of judges and disbarment of lawyers are also decided by the Supreme Court en banc. revise. VIII. other public ministers and consuls. (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax. which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc. or any penalty imposed in relation thereto. instruction. At. Also if two (2) divisions of the Supreme Court have conflicting decisions. quo warranto. 75. assessment. shall be automatically and regularly released. or operation of presidential decrees. ordinance. VIII. final judgments and orders of lower courts in: (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty. proclamations. and habeas corpus. Section 5. application. orders. 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. and over petitions for certiorari. international or executive agreement. and other regulations. 74. What are the cases to be decided by the Supreme Court en banc? All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty. instructions. Finally. or toll. What is the extent of the fiscal autonomy granted to the judiciary under the 1987 Constitution? As provided under Section 3. 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. law. Also. What are the powers of the Supreme Court? As enumerated in Art. mandamus. impost. or affirm on appeal or certiorari as the law or the Rules of Court may provide. reverse. or law. ordinances. 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. modify. . order. including those involving the constitutionality.

increase or modify substantive rights. etc. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. the Integrated Bar. (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher. What are the 3-fold Functions of Judicial Review? These are the: 1) legitimizing function or to declare the law valid and constitutional. treaty. Art. (6) Appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary in accordance with the civil service law. and shall not diminish. 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. (3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require.. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. 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. unconstitutional? . etc. treaty. 76. VIII) 77. and procedure in all courts. (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved. May inferior courts also exercise the power of judicial review (declaring a law. 3) symbolic or educational function or when the supreme court decide a case even if it is moot and academic to educate the lower courts and other government officials. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. practice . 78. (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. pleading . sitting separately could not declare a law.(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue. (Section 5 (5). Such temporary assignment shall not exceed 6 months without the consent of the judge concerned. the admission to the practice of law. (4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. 2) checking function or to declare the law unconstitutional.

(YNOT VS. 552 and ENDENCIA VS. ( DE AGBAYANI VS. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts. March 20. 81. IAC. 152 SCRA 284 which abandoned the contrary rulings in the cases of PERFECTO VS. treaty. It is only the declaration of unconstitutionality which is the ―operative fact‖ which would stop the people from complying with its provisions. DAVID. 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. etc. 38 SCRA 429) 80. integrity. Likewise. all acts done in connection with the said law before its declaration of unconstitutionality shall be considered legal. as shown by Section 5 [2] (a). 696 82. 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. is prospective. 85 Phil. VIII). PNB. 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..Yes because the power of judicial review is just a part of judicial power which is available to all courts (Section 1. MEER. Article VIII which would have the effect of decreasing the same? No. 1987) 79. the decision of lower courts declaring a law unconstitutional is subject to review by the Supreme Court. valid and binding. As such. May an RTC Judge be appointed as a member of the Provincial Peace and Order Council of the place where he holds office? . COMMISSIONER. Up to when are members of the judiciary entitled to hold on to their positions? Section 11. may the salaries of the members of the judiciary be taxed without violating Section 10. probity and independence. 93 Phil. Art. Art. This was the ruling in NITAFAN VS. 83. What is the “operative fact doctrine”? It simply means that the declaration of unconstitutionality of a law. Under the 1987 Constitution.

ENRILE. however. Art. VIII mandatory or merely directory? Section 15. and 3 months for all other lower courts. brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. 121 SCRA 205. LOOD. NLRC. Art. BUSCAYNO VS. October 5. Art. 169 SCRA 356 and Mangelen vs. 215 SCRA 230) 85. 86. 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. 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. NUNAL VS. This is so because it is ―impossible‖ for the Supreme Court to comply with such provision considering the . CFI. (AIR FRANCE VS. VIII. Is the requirement under Section 15. 1988) 84. It applies only to the courts as defined or included by Section 1. CA. A case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading. VIII. 18 SCRA 155. a case questioning the validity of the declaration of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus must be decided within 30 days from the date of filing. INCIONG. What are the periods given to the different courts to decide cases before them? Under Section 15. Art. 127 SCRA 75. NAPOLCOM VS. VII. 47 SCRA 354. CA. COMELEC. 112 SCRA 273. NAPOLCOM. 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. VALLADOLID VS. VIII is mandatory in all courts except the Supreme Court where said provision is considered merely directory. 12 months for all lower collegiate courts. MILITARY COMMISSIONS) bound by the requirement of Section 14. MANGCA VS. Are the different administrative and quasi-judicial bodies (COMELEC. CARRASCOSO. 102 SCRA 7. (IN RE: JUDGE RODOLFO MANZANO. Under Section 18. Art. Art. and unless reduced by the Supreme Court. VDA DE ESPIRITU VS.No.

MALLARE. and except as to positions which are policy determining. 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. CRUZ. 117 SCRA 435. Article IX-B of the Constitution. MALACORA VS. instrumentalities. Besa vs. 289) . 152 SCRA 205) 87. 121 SCRA 51 and DE ROMA VS. subdivisions. 87 Phil.volume of cases filed before it. What are covered by the powers of the Civil Service Commission? Under Section 2. 89.‖ (DE LOS SANTOS VS. CA. and agencies of the government. The position of City Engineer of Baguio City is technical ―but not highly so. MARCELINO VS. 90. Is the position of City Engineer of Baguio City a “highly technical” position? No. 33 SCRA 330) Highly technical position requires the appointee thereto to possess technical skill or training in the supreme or superior degree. the civil service embraces all branches. What are the requirements before one may be appointed in the civil service? Exceptions? Appointments in the CS shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable. primarily confidential or highly technical. CA 98 SCRA 424. including government owned and controlled corporations WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS. CA. by competitive examination. 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. (CORPUS VS. such as that head of a department. PNB. 88.

1987. 142 SCRA 280. June 10. 1991. MOLE. SANTOS. 124 SCRA and Executive Order No. the Provincial Legal Officer is a primarily confidential office. government employees may form unions but not authorized to strike or demand for collective bargaining agreement with the government. May gov't. As held in Medenilla vs. 93. Is the position of City or Provincial Legal Officer a primarily confidential position? Yes. 1988 . 95. CSC. authorizing govt. The same was reiterated in SAMSON VS. 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”. . as held in CADIENTE VS. It must be based on just cause and with due process. 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. WORKERS VS. This is clear from RA 6656. 180 . which is ―An act to protect the security of tenure of civil service officers and employees in the implementation of government reorganization.( DARIO VS.‖ There must be full compliance of the due process requirement. February 19. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO SUBSTITUTE THE APPOINTEE CHOSEN BY THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY WITH ANOTHER WHICH IT BELIEVES TO BE MORE QUALIFIED. 94. but not his assistant. Is there such a thing as “next-in-rank” or seniority rule in filling up vacancies in the classified civil service? No. 145 SCRA where it was held that The City Legal officer is a primarily confidential officer. employees form unions for purposes of collective bargaining and to strike against the government? As held in ALLIANCE OF GOVT. June 1. employees to form unions.91. CA. May government employees be removed without cause as a result of a government reorganization? No. What is important is that the appointee meets all the qualifications for the said position. 92.

October 3. Art. returns. media of communication. What are the more important powers of the COMELEC? Under Section 2.. Where must election cases involving city and provincial officials be filed? It must be filed with the COMELEC. MENDOZA VS. Yorac. Art. referendum and recall…. Deputize law enforcement agencies. including the AFP. QUISUMBING. 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. Section 1. DOTC vs. its powers are to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election. and qualifications of all elective regional. February 26. 99. 18. 209 SCRA 677) 96. Dec. Also. plebiscite. IX-C provides that ―In no case shall any member be appointed or designated in a temporary or acting capacity. it has the power to: a. Regulate the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises for the operation of transportation and other public utilities. 98. 1990. 1989. August 8. 1991. CSC. 1991) 97. Romualdez vs. initiative. FLOREZA VS. File complaints for violation of election laws d. 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.. ―)Brillantes vs. May a person be appointed in a temporary capacity as a Commissioner of the Commission on Elections? No. 1990. IX-C. ONGPIN.original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections. CSC. b. Register political parties. CSC. . 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. June 4. 1993 and Torio vs. except religious groups c.MISON. August 12. not with the courts.

ALBERTO ROMULO. Is the 3-term limit of elected local officials applicable to a term acquired through succession? No. particularly the IRA. not power of control as enunciated in Drilon vs. 102.100. In 2005. 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. May validly run again for Municipal Councilor during the May. 2007 elections? Yes. Montebon was elected Municipal Councilor of Tuburan. 2001 and 2004 elections. and JOSE T. ET AL. COMELEC. there must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. What are the requirements for a valid change of residence for purposes of the requirement on “residence” under the Local Government Cod e? In the case of DUMPIT-MICHELENA VS. Cebu during the 1998. The intent to remain in the new domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time. Lim. April 8. COMELEC. He was number councilor in the election of 2004. 1998) 102-a. X of the 1987 Constitution. 235 SCRA 135. must be voluntary and the residence at the new domicile must be actual. not by succession. He was forced by law to vacate his position as Municipal Councilor.R. It was not voluntary which could have resulted in the counting of his election in 2004 as his 3rd term. COMELEC. 2004. it was held that to validly effect a change of residence. HON. CAPCO. local governments have fiscal autonomy under Art. G. because there was ―INVOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION‖ of his 3 terms. May 27.. No. 133495. September 3. (MONTEBON VS. 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. is mandated with no conditions imposed for its release. 101.. (BENJAMIN BORJA VS. the 3-term limit applies only if the official was DULY ELECTED to the said position for three (3) consecutive terms. 2008) rd . the Vice Mayor died and he took over the said position by way of succession in accordance with the Local Government Code. automatic release of funds of Local Government Units. JR.

an impeachment complaint deemed ―initiated‖ to be a bar to the filing of another complaint within a 1 -year period . 106. 2009) 103.e. 105. 1997 and 2002 Barangay elections. (BOLOS. merged or abolished. COMELEC.102-b. Bohol during the 1994. trial and punishment according to law. he ran for Municipal Councilor of Dauis. 415 SCRA 44. must participate in the plebiscite. 142 SCRA 727 and Padilla vs. bribery. COMELEC. 2007? No more because he was elected to three consecutive terms. or its boundary substantially altered.. COMELEC. In the creation of a new province. His noncompletion of his 3rd term WAS VOLUNTARY when her run for Municipal Councilor. (TAN VS. 128 SCRA 6 and LOPEZ VS. who shall vote in the plebiscite to be conducted? All the residents of the political units affected. other high crimes. What are the grounds for impeachment? Only for ―Culpable violation of the constitution. or betrayal of public trust‖. 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. i. treason. graft and corruption. JR. 136 SCRA 633) 104. Dauis. former and new local government unit to be formed. When is an impeachment complaint deemed “initiated” to bar another complaint within a period of one year? As held in FRANCISCO VS. 2007. Is he qualified to run for Barangay Captain of his barangay during the barangay elections of October. 2003. Without having completed his 3rd term. municipality or barangay or when it will be divided. city. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. 214 SCRA 735 abandoning the doctrines in PAREDES VS. SPEAKER JOSE DE VENECIA. Jr. Bohol during the 2004 National and Local Elections and won. November 10. was elected Barangay Captain of Barangay Biking. Nicasio Bolos. ET AL. His term ended on June 30. METRO MANILA COMMISSION. VS. March 17.

FACULTY ADMISSION. only institutions of higher learning enjoy academic freedom because the provision then states that “all institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom (Art.‖ 109. 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. 1999. b. (Corpuz vs. 68 SCRA 277). and [b] COUPLED WITH CONGRESS TAKING INITIAL ACTION OF SAID COMPLAINT. 149 SCRA 281) 108.upon its [a] filing. New Hampshire (354 US 234 [1957]. 491. Philippine Political Law. GARCIA VS. (1962) and the concurring opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Sweezy v. CA. 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. Academic freedom is given a wide sphere of authority. As held in UP BOARD OF REGENTS VS. XV. what may be taught. ―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. Section 8 [1]. Tanodbayan. rules and regulations wherein only the COMELEC has the power to investigate and to file the appropriate information in court. 1973 Constitution. 110. What is the extent of academic freedom on the part of schools? It includes the power to determine: a. and d. 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. August 31. citing Sinco.‖ 107. who may teach. who may be admitted to study"' (Emphasis supplied. If . how it shall be taught. c. 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.

110 SCRA 456). CA (2008) where a rumble between two fraternities took place outside the school campus but the students involved were EXPELLED by the school. ( ANGELES VS.an institution of higher learning can decide on who can and cannot study in it. Also. 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. 111. it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates. 113. by reason of sovereignty (the people shall not be allowed to sue the very entity that gives it said right. 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. it has consented or waived said right to sue). It should be EXCLUSION. 112. 112 SCRA 26) This rule was reiterated in the cased of DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VS. (RAYO VS. however. The Supreme Court. 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. What are the underlying principles behind the constitutional proscription that the State may not be sued without its consent? By reason of public policy (if every citizen is allowed to sue the government. meaning. while conceding the power of the school over its students held that the penalty of expulsion is too harsh a penalty. 114. 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.) and by reason of consent (when the people ratified the Constitution which includes the provision that the State cannot be sued without its consent. it descended to the level of an individual making it susceptible to counterclaims or suits. the government is not . CFI OF BULACAN. SISON. it will be distracted from performing its functions to serve the people and it will be left just answering cases in court).

RUIZ. city.. C. Are local governments also entitled to invoke immunity from suit? Yes. because the government shall not enrich itself at the expense of its citizens. province or barangay to hold an annual fiesta.S. (MINISTERIO VS. 117. 85 SCRA 599) 117. 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. the said immunity from suit defense is not applicable if to do so would cause an injustice to a citizen (MINISTERIO VS. (TORIO VS. et al. CFI of Cebu. 87 SCRA 294) 115. CANCHELA. not governmental. 40 SCRA and SANTIAGO VS. 87 SCRA 294) PART II CONSTITUTIONAL LAW . REPUBLIC. It is only when the contract involves its “jus gestiones” or business or proprietary functions that it may be sued. it will be causing an injustice to its citizens. FONTANILLA. (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH VS. Is the US Government also immune from suit in the Philippines in connection with the exercise of its governmental functions? Yes. 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? Yes. it cannot be sued. 40 SCRA) It does not also apply if it was the government which violated its contract with its citizen (SANTIAGO VS. since no law requires any town. a town fiesta is a business or proprietary function. CFI OF CEBU. VS. This was the ruling in U.allowed to invoke its immunity from suit if by doing so. 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”. REPUBLIC. 475 SCRA 218) Also. 116.V.

CASTANEDA. ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. (DE LA CRUZ VS. SECRETARY. 595—apprehend and confine lepers in a leprosarium) c. curb prostitution or illicit relationships. 1967) 2-b. 50 Phil. to protect public morals. It is a valid exercise of police power to promote public morals. PARAS. (VILLANUEVA VS. What are the basic purposes/aspects of police power: a. CA.. TORIBIO. HERNANDEZ. CITY MAYOR. 88 SCRA 195. (AGUSTIN VS. to promote and preserve public health. 1967. May the City of Manila validly prohibit the operation of night clubs. sauna parlors. 11155) 2-a. 119 SCRA 897 ) d. CITY MAYOR. beerhouses.1. 15 Phil. to promote and protect public safety. establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws for the good and welfare of the State and its people. VELASCO VS. VILLEGAS. i. JUINIO. (ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. May an Ordinance of the City of Manila validly require people/couples checking in the different motels in the city to [1] register at the motel’s desk facing a public street. (ICHONG VS. to maintain and safeguard peace and order.? A. JMM PROMOTIONS VS. Define police power. 180 SCRA 533 [NMAT]. July 31. It is the power vested in the legislature by the Constitution to make. 1983) f. 101 Phil. to promote the general welfare. February 13. (GUAZON VS. 260 SCRA 319. 1967) 2. to promote the economic security of the people. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH. SAN DIEGO. TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. and [2] show their identification card. 85 b. EDU. karaoke bars. CITY MAYOR. July 31. ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. etc. September 21. July 31. comfort and convenience of the people. and similar establishments in the Ermita-Malate Area and gives the existing establishments three (3) months to transfer to any place outside said area under pain of imprisonment of . (ERMITA MALATE HOTEL VS. 123 SCRA 569. Yes. DECS VS. US VS. DE VILLA) e. 175 SCRA 343.e. ordain. LORENZO VS. massage parlors. 1987.

in the exercise . Distinguish police power with power of eminent domain. There is nothing immoral in staying in a motel or hotel for a period of three (3) hours only because a person‘s stay therein could be for purposes other than having sex or using illegal drugs. 2008) 2-c. JR. even assuming that the said Ordinance is intended to promote public morals. In the exercise of police power. ? A. The distinctions are: 1. (CITY OF MANILA. 2009. 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. It likewise violates the equal protection clause. 2. at the Ermita-Malate area. JUDGE PERFECTO LAGUIO. there should be compensable taking if it would result to public use. Further. no compensation shall be paid. to offer “short time” admission therein? A. Properties condemned under police power are usually noxious or intended for noxious purpose.R. hence .00 or change the nature of their business to gift shops. etc. G. there is no compensable taking provided none of the property interests is appropriated for the use or for the benefit of the public. It violates the due process clause by depriving the owners of said establishments of their legitimate businesses.000. The Ordinance is unconstitutional. April 12.up to 1 year and fine of P5. No. restaurants. there is nothing that would prevent people engaged in illicit relationships to check in in said motels by paying 12 hours or more though they will just stay there for 3 hours. 3. G. represented by MAYOR ALFREDO LIM. Otherwise.) 3. etc.R. and MALATE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. (WHITE LIGHT CORPORATION VS. In such case. There is no logic in allowing said establishments in other parts of the City of Manila but not in the Ermita-Malate area. The Ordinance is unconstitutional and is not a valid exercise of police power. May the City of Manila validly prohibit hotels and motels. CITY OF MANILA. 118127. January 20. No. the means employed is constitutionally infirm and not a valid exercise of police power. Finally. 122846.. represented by Mayor Alfredo Lim VS. enjoyment of a property is restricted because the continued use thereof would be injurious to public welfare. Likewise.

Due process is a law which hears before it condemns. (LAWFUL MEANS). PALANCA. 37 Phil. or the procedure as pointed out by Daniel Webster. 7.. substantive due process---requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to life. Define due process. not mere particular class. DENR SEC. it is to determine whether it has a valid governmental objective like for the interest of the public as against mere particular class. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing. In short. What are the requisites of “judicial due process”? As held in BANCO ESPANOL VS. b. (DIDIPIO EARTH SAVERS MULTI PURPOSE ASSOCIATION VS. 5. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property subject of the proceedings. which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial (Per Daniel Webster in the DARTMOUTH COLLEGE CASE) 6. the interests of the public. What are the Kinds of Due Process? a. liberty or property. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the matter before it. property rights of private individuals are subjected to restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort. health and prosperity of the state. In short. ELISEA GOZU. The requisites are: 1. ET AL. the end does not justify the means. 921. 485 SCRA 586) 4. What are the tests for a valid exercise of police power a. .of police power. (LAWFUL SUBJECT) b. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard. require the exercise of police power. Procedural due process---one which hears before it condemns. 4. the means employed is reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive to individuals. 3. 2.

No. b. 9. PEOPLE. (CONSULTA VS. If an accused was represented by a non-lawyer during the trial of his criminal case. 69 Phil. they shall be informed of the evidence against them. 3. What are the requisites of procedural due process in disciplinary actions against students? As held in GUZMAN VS. the evidence must be substantial. they shall have the right to answer the charges against them. g. particularly when the prosecution presented its evidence. What are the requisites of due process before administrative bodies? As held in TIBAY VS. 2. c. CIR. even if he was not represented by a non-lawyer at the start of the criminal trial. 635.8. the tribunal or body must act on its own independent consideration of the law or facts. 2009) 10. NU. the requisites are: 1. d. the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. the decision must have something to support itself. 142 SCRA 706. G. his right to due process was violated and therefore. . November 10. but was represented by a lawyer when he presented his evidence. the requisites are: a. 1986). February 12. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them.R. (DELGADO VS. he entitled to a new trial. 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 entire trial (though she thought that he was a lawyer). CA. f. render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceedings can know the various issues involved. the board or body shall in all controversial questions. with the assistance of counsel. 179642. the right to a hearing which includes the right to present evidence. e. However. the decision must be based on the evidence presented during the hearing. there is no violation of his right to due process or right to counsel.

Due process is served if was given the chance to present his evidence. ET AL. The right to due process is not violated even if a party to an administrative case was not allowed to cross-examine the other party or his witnesses. 2007) . Notice. How about in investigations involving disciplinary actions against students. 127980. 282 SCRA 125) 12-a. 2008) 12-b. The right to due process on the part of a student is not violated even if he was not allowed to cross-examine the other party or his witnesses. April 22. No. G. G. No.R. ROMEO ERECE VS. whether the Civil Service Act or the Administrative Code of 1987. which provides that a respondent in an administrative case should be assisted by counsel in order that the proceedings therein is considered valid.4. 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. What he is entitled to is the right to be heard. (LUMIQUED VS. (ATTY. LYN MACALINGAY. RTC 36.R. 166809. Hearing 12. 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. that. No. Manila. Is due process satisfied in administrative proceedings if the respondent is not assisted by counsel? There is no law. (DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VS.. are the latter entitled to cross-examine the complainant and his witnesses? A. EXENEA. the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf. December 19. 11. Is there a violation of a person’s right to due process before an administrative body like the Civil Service Commission if a party was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against him despite his request? No. 5. and 2. JUDGE WILFREDO REYES. Not only.

14-a. February 22. Is there violation of the equal protection clause if policemen and soldiers are given allowances in the General Appropriations Act while other government workers are not since the allowances of all government workers were incorporated already in their salaries under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989? No. there is real and substantial distinction. 14. There is real and substantial distinction. c. PEOPLE. It must not be limited to existing conditions only. Is there a violation of the right to equal protection of the laws of appointed government officials who are deemed automatically resigned upon the filing of their certificate of candidacy while elected officials are not? No. Policemen and soldiers are in charge of the defense of the country and could be transferred to virtually anywhere in the country. Since their basic pay does not vary on location. Most elected officials have a fixed term under the Constitution and said term could not be shortened by means of a law. It must be germane tot he purposes of the law. d. the requisites are: a. (QUINTO VS. 2010) 14-b. In HIMAGAN VS. and It must apply equally to all members of the same class. 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. Cayat. b. COMELEC. 68 Phil. the continued grant of COLA to them is intended to help them offset the effects of living in higher cost . 12. What are the requisites for a valid classification? As held in People vs.13. There must be real and substantial distinctions. 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.

and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. August 3. who. any police or law enforcement personnel. a Circular issued by the Supreme Court requires that no warrant or warrant of arrest shall be implemented during the night. week-ends or holidays. Approved on March 6. 9372. Period of detention without judicial warrant of arrest. 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. March 18. 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 witnesses he may produce. Finally. 2007 and effective on July 15. Art. Republic Act No. 2010) 15. notwithstanding. witnesses are required. 18.. Sec. and b. except in exceptional circumstances. Judicial determination of probable cause to be done by the judge for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused. (GUTIERREZ VS. (LEVISTE VS. III) In addition. 2010) NOTE: Under the Human Security Act/Anti-Terrorism Law. What are the two (2) kinds of probable cause? The two (2) kinds of probable cause are: a. 15-a. having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of a person charged with or suspected . JUDGE ALAMEDA. DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT. The executive determination of probable cause by the Prosecutor where he determines whether to file a criminal case in court or not.. 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.areas. (Section 2.The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.

The judge shall forthwith submit his report within 3 calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or office. the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested. WITHOUT INCURRING ANY CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES. Sundays. moral or psychological torture by whom and why.of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall. The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall. 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. among other things. or law enforcement personnel: Provided. 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. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. That where the arrest is made during Saturdays. 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.In the vent of an actual or imminent terrorist attack. Section 19. before detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism. and taken into custody by the said police. Period of Detention in the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack. holidays or after office hours. provided. detained. 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. suspects may . 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.. 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.. the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest. to ascertain the identity of the police or law enforcement personnel and the person or persons they have arrested and presented before him or her. It shall be the duty of the judge.

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. the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of arrest. CA. 17. Sundays or holidays. 2. search incidental to a lawful arrest. 6. If the arrest is made during Saturdays. 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? . WHAT IS MATERIAL IN DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF A SEARCH IS THE PLACE STATED IN THE WARRANT ITSELF. 3. or judge of the municipal. 288 SCRA 626) 18. That within three days after the detention the suspects whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not established. 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. (PEOPLE VS. NOT WHAT THE APPLICANTS HAD IN THEIR THOUGHTS. or after office hours.not be detained for more than three days without the written approval of a municipal. OR HAD REPRESENTED IN THE PROOFS THEY SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ISSUING THE WARRANT. 5. Provided. 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. 4. 291 SCRA 400. however. and stop and frisk measures. seizure of evidence in plain view. customs searches. are the things seized admissible in evidence? No. consented searches. provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission. 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. searches of moving vehicle. 16. ARUTA. As held in PEOPLE VS. shall be released immediately. city. regional trial court.

the same is not valid since there could have been no searching questions. tax evasion and insurance fraud? No.R. 54 SCRA 312) 20.SR. As such. As held in the case of Soliven vs. N. July 14.No. 1995. 19. PEOPLE VS. 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. Herrera. the warrant shall be void. He could not have determined probable cause based from the said documents. (VICENTE LIM. There will be no basis for the issuance since the Prosecutor is neither the complainant nor the witness to the case. CA. the SC held in PENDON VS. 99054-57). such would be a ―general warrant‖ and violates the rule that a warrant shall be issued for one (1) specific offense. NO. 37 SCRA 823. PEOPLE. he shall: . 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. As held in Bache vs. Makasiar. decided under the 1987 Constitution. (TAMBASEN VS. G. November 16. Ruiz. CA. (Asian Surety vs. the examination of the complainant ant the witnesses he may produce must be done personally by the judge. 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? No. 1990 that when the questions asked to the applicant for a search warrant was pre-typed. theft and qualified theft‖.HON. FELIX . 216 SCRA 101) 21. Otherwise. falsification. robbery. Following established doctrine and procedures.What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. May a search warrant be issued for the crimes of search warrant for estafa. AND MAYOR SUSANA LIM VS.

must he examine the complainant and his witnesses face to face in order to comply with the said constitutional provision? It depends.(1) personally evaluate the reports and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. The case of People vs. (2) The preliminary inquiry made by the prosecutor does not bind the judge. however. While the former seeks to determine probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor for the Election Supervisor to ascertain. By itself. 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. (3) Preliminary inquiry should be distinguished from the preliminary investigation proper. In connection with the issuance of a warrant of arrest. As to the requirement that the judge must “personally” determine probable cause. 22. the word “personally‖ after the word determined does not necessarily mean that the judge . the affidavits. on the basis thereof. Inting reiterates the following doctrines: (1) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge. face to face. the latter ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or be released. the transcripts of stenographic notes. It is the report. with searching questions. the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It merely assist him to make the determination of probable cause. and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge to make his determination. issue a warrant of arrest. he must personally examine the complainant and the witnesses. (2) If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause. Honorable Enrique B. Only the judge alone makes this detemination. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor's present to him. In connection with the issuance of a SEARCH WARRANT.

(P. Probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest is a judicial function vested only in the judge. without warrant. Villanueva. and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Arrest without warrant. June. Villanueva. In fact. or is attempting to commit an offense. G. Article 113 of the Rules of Court which provides: Sec. 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. 1992. 87059. 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. in his presence. MAKASIAR. 5. As such. Placer vs. 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. No. 110 SCRA 465. (b) When an offense has in fact just been committed. MENGOTE. arrest a person: (a) When. the person to be arrested has committed. 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. 167 SCRA 393 23. SOLIVEN VS. 210 SCRA 174. vs. 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.R.A peace officer or private person may. 126 SCRA 463).. when lawful. and . ―OPERATION KAPKAP‖ or warrantless search without probable cause is unconstitutional. 24. is actually committing. Such search is valid only if covered by Section 5.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. there is no need to examine the complainant and his witnesses face to face.

Note. As the policemen ran after them. 25. He was not even acting suspiciously. his arrest without a warrant cannot be justified. 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 accused-appellant commit the crime charged against him. as the prosecution incorrectly suggested. there was no probable cause that. 355 SCRA 246. 1997. . Indeed. May the Iloilo Police arrests without warrant or search the person disembarking from a ship without warrant based solely on an information relayed to them by an informant that the suspect‟s bag contains marijuana? No. to all appearances no less innocent than the other disembarking passengers. 26. that in MALACAT VS. Considering that the accused-appellant 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. 283 SCRA 159. October 9. As held in PEOPLE vs. He had not committed nor was actually committing or attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. CA. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. PEOPLE. In short. an unlicensed firearm was confiscated. 163 SCRA 402 a warrantless arrest of the accused was unconstitutional. the SC held that mere suspicions not sufficient to validate warrantless arrest. GALVEZ. the prosecution admitted that there was no warrant of arrest issued against accused-appellant when the latter was taken into custody. Compare this case to MANALILI VS. In arrests without warrant based on the fact that a crime has just been committed. The search was declared valid by the Supreme Court. AMMINUIDIN. what kind of knowledge is required on the part of the arresting officer? In PEOPLE VS. however. This was effected while he was coming down the vessel. dispensed with the constitutional requirement of a warrant.(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. The policemen saw several suspicious looking men at dawn who ran when they went near them.

January 18.27. PANO. Is a warrantless search and seizure by a private individual valid? Yes since the constitutional provision is not applicable to him. THE OBJECTION IS DEEMED WAIVED.. 288 SCRA 588. 81561. may the arresting officers validly search his car parked several meters from the place of arrest based on “search incidental to a valid arrest”? . ET AL. INC. What are the requisites of a valid search incidental to a valid arrest? As held in NOLASCO VS. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROGELIO SOLUTA. 482 SCRA 660) 29. if the accused was arrested in the street during a buy-bust operation.R. a search incidental to a valid arrest must be done at the place where the accused is arrested or its immediate vicinity or on the person of the accused. G. 139 SCRA 541. the accusedappellant waived his right to raise the issue of illegality of his arrest. 1991. As such. GALVEZ. if accused was arrested while inside a jeepney. (PEOPLE VS. CA. If the accused was validly arrested without warrant inside a night club for illegal possession of firearm. the search of his house nearby is not a valid search incidental to a valid arrest. NO. 30. 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. OTHERWISE. Or as held in ESPANO VS. 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. there is no valid search incidental to a valid arrest if she will be brought to her residence and thereafter search the said place. 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? By entering a plea of not guilty during the arraignment. ANDRE MARTI. 355 SCRA 246) 28. VS. SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL.

he may be arrested at once as he is in effect committing a crime in the presence of the police officers. it being one of the recognized exceptions under the Rules. . 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. PEOPLE VS. no search warrant is necessary and in the absence of any license for said firearm. Damaso. supra. No warrant is necessary in such a situation. he may be lawfully searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. DAMASO. can be used as evidence against the accused. not due to search incidental to a valid arrest. 354 SCRA 338) 31. without a search warrant in accordance with Section 12. Commissioner. “plain view doctrine could not be used to justify the seizure of an unlicensed firearm in People vs. As such. In order that there is a valid consent to a warrantless search. 341 SCRA 25. VALDEZ. CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE DURING AN ILLEGAL SEARCH because of his consent. 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) . (PEOPLE VS. the items do not fall under the exclusionary rule and the unlicensed firearms. GO. What is the “plain view doctrine” in connection with warrantless search and seizure? As held in PEOPLE VS. drug paraphernalia and the shabu. APPLIES ONLY WHERE THE POLICE OFFICER IS NOT SEARCHING FOR EVIDENCE AGAINS THE ACCUSED.Where the gun tucked in a person‘s waist is plainly visible to the police. BUT INADVERTENTLY COMES ACROSS AN INCRIMINATING OBJECT. which may justify a search without warrant. Rule 126. In fact. the “plain view” doctrine. As such. This is a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest. of a drug paraphernalia and shabu. the consent must come from the person directly affected by said warrantless search. 212 SCRA 547 abandoned the ruling in Lopez vs. 32. 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 a consequence of the accused‘s valid warrantless arrest inside the nightclub.

566). Define probable cause in connection with the issuance of a search warrant. after they were given consent by the said owner of the house for them to search for rebel soldiers. 667. However. DAYRIT. the Supreme Court clarified that the military officers manning the checkpoints may conduct VISUAL SEARCH ONLY. 1988). 83988. VS. NOT BODILY SEARCH. and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched". GEN RENATO DE VILLA. Manila & People of the Philippines. ADDISON. The checkpoints are legal as where the survival of the organized government is on the balance. CFI. September 29. NEMESIO PRUDENTE VS. GR No. 1989) 35. 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. 36. NBI. admissible in evidence? . December 14. not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considers to be reliable. 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. 1989. 64 PHIL. Is an unlicensed firearm seized in the house of the accused without warrant by the military authorities. 33. GR No. RTC 33. SY JUCO. 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. What is the “sufficiency test” in connection with applications for a search warrant? "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. 34. June 23. (P. The "probable cause" for a valid search warrant. EXECUTIVE JUDGE ABELARDO M. US VS. 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. 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. 82870. 28 PHIL. or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril. THE HON." (DR. 64 PHIL. (Quintero vs.33. ALVAREZ VS.

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. GOZO VS. 37. when the statements in the affidavits of witnesses are mere generalities. and not positive statements of particular acts. if the court believes that the presence of the accused could be had even without a warrant of arrest. CA. mere conclusions of law. there was no consent to search for firearms and as a consequence. 300 SCRA 265. TAC-AN. If the offense committed is a serious one like that obtaining in this case for murder. Ponsica vs. As such. the Judge must issue a warrant of arrest after determining the existence of probable cause) 38. 164 SCRA 655 and COLUMBIA PICTURES VS. Dayrit. July 31. supra. Ignalaga. Note: This case involves a minor offense) 2. then he may not issue said warrant. would such fact sufficient to convince the court of the existence of “probable cause”? No. (Prudente vs. SEPTEMBER 26.1987) 39. knowledge based on hearsay information does not justify the existence of probable cause. If the judge finds that there's probable cause.) In fact. In VEROY VS. must he issue a warrant of arrest as a matter of course? It depends: 1. 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) . CA. they instead seized an unlicensed firearm. If the applicant for a search warrant testifies that his knowledge of the facts and circumstances was derived from a “highly reliable informant”. 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. what must the applicant submit to the court in order that the search warrant to be issued shall be valid? In Century Fox vs. SALVANI. LAYAGUE. As such. In the seizure of alleged pirated tapes. SAMULDE VS. the warrant issued by virtue thereof is not valid.No. 261 SCRA 144. the firearm is not admissible as evidence. 210 SCRA 97.

message. conversation. 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. doctors and patients. intercept and record. intercept and record. form or kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices. The provisions of RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding. discussion. Approved on March 6. listen. Provided. any communication.The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to track down. or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization. interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients. message. may police authorities the listen to. journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized. association. or with the use of any other suitable ways or means for that purpose. conversations. a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may. That surveillance. Republic Act No. 41. Surveillance of suspects and interception and recording of communications. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization. or with the use of any other suitable ways or means for that purpose.40. listen to. form or kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices. 2007 and effective on July 15. intercept. with the use of any mode. 9372. with the use of any mode. or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. Section 8. tap. 2007. conversation. 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. any communication. and record communications. discussions.. 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 . or spoken or written words of any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism. upon a written order of the Court of Appeals. discussion. Under the Human Security Act/Anti-Terrorism Law. messages.

messages.application. The written order of the authorizing division of the court of Appeals shall specify the following: The identity. . conversations. if he or she intends to do so. or spoken or written words. conversations. or telephone (whether wireless or otherwise) communications. electronic. and That there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence. or is about to be committed. or to the solution or prevention of any such crimes. if known. intercepted or recorded and. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. listened to. The identity (name and address. tapped. spoken or written words and effects have been monitored. bugged or recorded by law enforcement authorities has the right to be informed of the acts done by the law enforcement authorities in the premises or to challenge. the original application of the applicant. discussions. will be obtained. discussions. The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as well as its order. That the person being surveilled or whose communications. to extend or renew the same. tapped. if any. letters. 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. and the written authorizations of the Anti-Terrorism Council shall be deemed and are hereby declared as classified information: Provided. tap. messages. such person shall be subject to continuous surveillance provided there is reasonable ground to do so. intercepted. discussions. or is being committed. listened to. in case of radio. and recorded and their locations if the person suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is not fully known. such as name and address. if any. including his application to extend or renew. messages. and the police or law enforcement organization) of the members of his team judicially authorized to track down. papers. conversations. of the charged of suspected persons whose communications. 9. the electronic transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tracked down. the legality of the interference before the Court of Appeals which issued said written order. or spoken or written words are to be tracked down. listened to. Sec. 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.

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 Anti-terrorism Council in writing. 9372. and The length of time which the authorization shall be used or carried out. messages. Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization. Approved on March 6.listen to. It provides: Section 27. Republic Act No. Section. The CA may extend or renew the said authorization for another nonextendible period. or being committed. The offense or offenses committed. discussions. intercept. 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: . 2007. 42. or sought to be prevented. 10. Judicial authorization required to examine bank deposits. 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. association or group of persons. Effective Period of Judicial Authorization. or spoken or written words. 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. accounts and records. 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. and record the communications. conversations. 2007 and effective on July 15. 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. Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons. Under the Human Security Act/Anti-Terrorism Law.

28. The written order of the CA authorizing the examination of bank deposits. examine or cause the examination of. and records in a bank or financial institution. 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 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. placements. Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization. when so ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of Appeals. 43. gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits. Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons. association or group of persons. trust accounts.1. association or group of persons. assets. assets and records: A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. placements. The bank or financial institution shall not refuse to allow such examination or to provide the desired information. trust accounts. Of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons. Of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization. trust accounts. checks and greeting cards of the alleged paramours of her husband in the latter’s clinic and use the same as evidence in a legal separation case between them? . Application to examine deposits. placements. placements. trust accounts. Sec. May a wife validly seize the diaries. and 2. the deposits. and records from a bank or financial institution. assets. assets and records: Of A person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. accounts and records.

Bustos.As held in ZULUETA VS. the evidence obtained by the wife who forcibly opened the drawers at the clinic of her doctor-husband and took diaries. (US vs. SEDANO. checks and greeting cards of his alleged paramours is inadmissible as evidence. CA. 14 Phil. The importance to the State and to society of such discussions is so vast. 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. moral and physical fitness of candidates for public office. and the advantages derived so great. 1996. computers. 2004 . and occasional injury to the . 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 the Constitution since it is the public‘s right to be informed of the mental. that they more than counterbalance the inconvenience of private persons whose conduct may be involved. 444 SCRA 28 [November 25.S. COURT OF APPEALS & RAMON LABO. 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. under Section 26 of the law. Is the freedom of speech and expression affected by the Human Security Act? Yes. 37 Phil. 43. 731) 45.. 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. February 10. This was recognized as early as the case of US VS. JR. 376 U. 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. 338 [1909] and the case of NEW YORK TIMES VS. or other means of communications with people outside their residence. This is so because the intimacies of husband and wife does not justify the breaking of cabinets to determine marital infidelity. SULLIVAN. The interest of the government and the society demands full discussion of public affairs.‖ 44.

reputations of individuals must yield to the public welfare. SANIDAD VS. although at times such injury may be great. “ Clearly. 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.R.76 SCRA 448. INCLUDING THE FORUM. (PABLITO V. ANNOUNCER OR COMMENTATOR‘S CHOICE OF THE FORUM WHERE HE MAY EXPRESS HIS VIEW. May the COMELEC validly prohibit columnists. 2d 419 are: 1. Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and importance. the same must be [a] a true and fair report of the actual proceedings. 46. such would be an undue interference on the freedom of expression. Ed. California. What are the tests of obscenity? The three (3) tests as held in Miller vs. 90878. 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. G. January 29. [b] must be done in good faith. IT IS STILL A RESTRICTION ON THE COLUMNIST. NO. 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. Whether the average person applying to contemporary community standards would find the work appeals to prurient interest. 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. and [c] no comments nor remarks shall be made by the writer} 48. The public benefit from publicity is so great and the chance of injury to private character so small. that such discussion must be privileged. 1990) 47. 37 L. COMELEC. Gutierrez. it was held that in order that any news item relating to a judicial proceeding will not be actionable. . 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? In Elizalde vs.

It is . 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. only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. 178 SCRA 362). 3. after their demand to the government was not met” In GESITE et al. If it were a private place. 50. instead of going on strike. (Bangalisan vs. undertaken for essentially economic reasons. 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. WITHOUT INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. he will become the complainant. Whether the work as a whole lacks serious literary . vs. COURT OF APPEALS. CA. WILL BE DEEMED CONTROLLING. The fact that the conventional term ―strike‖ was not used by the striking employees to describe their common course of action is inconsequential.2. prosecutor and judge at the same time. Whether the work depicts or describes a patently offensive sexual conduct. CA. artistic. (Pita vs. or absence from. otherwise. 276 SCRA 619) 51. The right of government employees to organize IS LIMITED TO THE FORMATIONS OF UNIONS OR ASSOCIATIONS ONLY. May public school teachers validly file mass leaves. political or scientific value. the public place where and the time when it will take place.‖ It is undisputed fact that there was a work stoppage and that petitioners‘ purpose was to realize their demands by withholding their services. 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. they constituted a concerted and unauthorized stoppage of. 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. SINCE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SITUATION. AND NOT ITS APPEARANCE. 444 SCRA 51 held that ―these mass actions were to all intents and purposes a strike. work which it was the teachers ‘ duty to perform. 49. A City Mayor may not order the warrantless seizure of magazines which he believes to be obscene.

it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms. especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. May. whether favorable or adverse. NCRPO Chief Maj. the policy of dispersing rallyists through water cannons. it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil. ARTURO M. No. PEDRO BULAONG. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional. ―maximum tolerance‖ is for the benefit of rallyists. Far from being insidious. 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. not the government. KARAPATAN. Manila City Mayor LITO ATIENZA. Thereafter. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. 53. VIDAL QUEROL. Gen. they can have recourse to the proper judicial authority. On the other hand.an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. his decision. the applicants must be heard on the matter. 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. KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP). Chief of the Philippine National Police. the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy. in his capacity as Executive Secretary. Is BP 880 unconstitutional for being vague (Void for Vagueness Doctrine) and overbroad (Overbreadth Doctrine)? No. It is very clear that it deals only on public assemblies that deals with rallies. place and manner of assemblies.R. No. EDUARDO ERMITA. For this reason. As such. (BAYAN. KARAPATAN. Gen. 169848. mass actions and similar acts and not all kinds of public assemblies. and Western Police District Chief Gen. it is not vague. Thus if so minded. 2006) 52. EDUARDO ERMITA. (BAYAN. KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP). G. 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. has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. B. and GABRIELA vs. in his capacity as Executive Secretary. must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. .P. Neither is the law overbroad. and GABRIELA vs.

It shall pay P10M in damages for the losses suffered by Bombo Radyo as a result of the illegal closure. NCRPO Chief Maj. Isabela constitutes prior restraint. Yes as ―subsequent punishment‖. May. It constitutes ―prior restraint‖. May the City of Cauayan. PEDRO BULAONG. 2009) [Dissenting Opinion: The suspension of the program is illegal. and Western Police District Chief Gen. it is a valid ―prior restraint‖ measure on the part of the MTRCB (SORIANO VS. In fact. April 29. and CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM. LOMIBAO. Nos. Chief of the Philippine National Police. 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. 170270 &179411. ARTURO M. CEASAR G. He is prevented from hosting the program during the succeeding days even if he will just say the ―Lord‘s Prayer‖ or to greet ―good morning‖ to his viewers. then such words are punishable) . April 2. (NEWSOUNDS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC. Gen. validly close the Bombo Radio Stations therein on the ground that their building was constructed on an “agricultural land” [that is why the City did not issue business permit for it to operate] which has not been converted to “commercial land” by the DAR despite the fact that it has been there for so many years and was questioned only when the said station was critical of the Dy’s in Isabela who own the only other radio station therein? A. vs. Gen. 2009) 54-b.R. HON. The act of the City of Cauayan. No. May the MTRCB suspend for three (3) months the airing of the program Ang Dating Daan of Brother Eliseo Soriano as a result of vulgar and uncouth language he uttered against the host of the program Ang Tamang Daan of the Iglesia Ni Kristo? A. RACMA FERNANDEZ-GARCIA and THE CITY OF CAUAYAN. 169848. Isabela. VIDAL QUEROL. Per Justice Antonio Carpio] 54-a. FELICISIMO G. BAGNOS MAXIMO. INC.Manila City Mayor LITO ATIENZA. MEER. DY. G. G. Distinguish “clear and present danger”. LAGUARDIA. 2006) 54. “dangerous tendency rule” and “balancing of interest test”.R.

or none at all. the state shall balance their respective interests. a. JUDGE CAPULONG. IN the first. 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. He may indulge in his own theories about life and death. and b. the right to privacy shall prevail.) 55. if the individual externalizes what he believes. To exclude him as integral part of the revolution would be a distortion of history. Freedom to believe. . 57. the duty of the courts is to determine which of the 2 conflicting interests demand greater protection under the circumstances presented. He may not be punished even if he cannot prove what he believes. JUAN PONCE ENRILE. conditional. his freedom to do so becomes subject to the authority of the State. worship any god he chooses.The balancing-of-interest test (When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of the public order. Example: ―Go forth and multiply---cannot marry several times just to comply. (AYER PRODUCTION VS. Since the movie producer is primarily after profits only. As between the right to privacy invoked by the mother and the freedom of expression invoked by the movie producer. This is so because religious freedom can be exercised only with due regard to the rights of others. 160 SCRA 861) 56.. What are the two (2) aspects of the RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS PROFESSION AND WORSHIP ? Distinguish each. In the second. such freedom is absolute. (Lagunzad vs. Freedom to act. Gonzales). 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. ET AL. the latter‘s right prevail because Enrile‘s part in the movie deals solely on his acts as a public officer then. and the regulation results in an indirect. partial abridgment of speech. as between Enrile‘s right to privacy and the freedom of expression on the part of the movie producer.

May a Jehovah’s Witnesses Member who is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253. Las Pinas City. recite the Patriotic Pledge. The doctrine laid down in Gerona vs. be held liable for “grossly immoral conduct” for living with a married man while her very own marriage was still subsisting? No. That the conjugal arrangement with Quilapio has the approval of her congregation. and Salute the Flag. March 1. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU. 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. May children of Jehovah’s Witnesses in public schools be forced to sing the National Anthem. Religious freedom is superior to the statute requiring the pupils to sing the National Anthem. recite the Patriotic Pledge. Neither shall . 60. 59. 492 SCRA 1 (Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration). (ROEL EBRALINAG. this mode of living with another other than his or her spouse by a married person does not apply in places where divorce is allowed. SOLEDAD ESCRITOR. Secretary of Education was reversed. That the conjugal arrangement was in conformity with their religious beliefs. However. 1993). ET AL VS. 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. The Declaration thus makes the resulting union moral and binding within the congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed. 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. 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.58. and Salute the Flag under pain of being expelled for non-compliance? No since such is in violation of their religious beliefs. 408 SCRA 1. As held in ESTRADA VS.

as may be provided by law. Is the right to travel affected by the Human Security Act? Yes. These restrictions shall be terminated upon acquittal of the accused. September 15. May Former 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 in accordance with his constitutional right to travel? No. VS. the suspect‘s right to travel shall be limited to the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending. 88211. These two (2) rights are different under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. without the authorization of the court. in the interest of national security and public safety. BUT IT IS OUR WELLCONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE RIGHT TO RETURN MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security.R. HON. (FERDINAND MARCOS. RAUL MANGLAPUS. G. ET AL. UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION. 62. WHICH TREATS ONLY OF THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL. 1989 and the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 27. Travel outside of said municipality or city. . or public health. 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. 1989). and/or Upon application of the prosecutor.. 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. 61. IS PART OF THE LAW OF THE LAND. ET AL. or the dismissal of the case filed against him. or earlier upon the discretion of the court or upon motion of the prosecutor. THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO ONE'S COUNTRY IS NOT AMONG THE RIGHTS SPECIFICALLY GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Restricted from traveling. public safety. What is provided by the Philippine Constitution is the right to travel and not the right to return. NO.

CA. 2007) 67. May a person out on bail be validly allowed to travel abroad? Yes. What is the “residual power” of the President? It is the power of the President in balancing the general welfare and the common good against the exercise of rights of certain individuals. Is the right to information on matters of public concern absolute? No. COMELEC. subject to the following requisites ( Manotoc vs. 142 SCRA 149): He must however [1] convince the courts of the urgency of his travel. The power involved is the President's RESIDUAL POWER to protect the general welfare of the people. May the COMELEC be compelled to publish the names of the nominees of the different party-list groups for the May 14. the COMELEC must publish the same despite the prohibition in the law. the request must be done during office hours. 64. 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.63. Such prohibition violates the right to information on matters of public concern on the part of the citizen. etc. 2007 elections despite the prohibition on such publication as embodied by the Party-List Act? YES. [2] the duration thereof. 66. (BANTAY REPUBLIC VS. and [3] that his sureties are willing to undertake the responsibility of allowing him to travel. 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? . 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. MAY 4. 65.

In ordinary expropriation cases. No. RA 8974 shall be followed. 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. SEC. 478 SCRA 474) 2. subject to the approval by the President. May a Barangay validly exercise the power of eminent domain? Yes. It is only through said investigations that the people will be informed of the workings of the different departments of the government.. . represented by SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON. Such would violate the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. JUDGE GINGOYON.R. (SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES. It provides: PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.No. EDUARDO ERMITA. 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. ET AL. VS. EXEC. 2006 ) 68. like those covered by the ―Build-Operate-Transfer‖. G. 148 SCRA 83) 69. 16977.. 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. 354 SCRA 562. Elbinias. If the expropriation is for a ―National government projects‖ or ―national infrastructure projects‖. JUDGE BACALLA. This means that there must be a [a] Complaint for expropriation which is sufficient in form and in substance. the rule is that in the case of BIGLANGAWA VS. RULE 67 OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE DOCTRINE LAID DOWN IN THE ROBERN DEVELOPMENT CASE.( Barangay Matictic vs. ET AL. (REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. April 20. and the making of a deposit equivalent to the ASSESSED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EXPROPRIATION.

the tax declarations thereon. c. Finally. shall be complied with: 1.3. its actual or potential uses. cost of acquisition. (BERKENKOTTER. 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. RTC 22. (Manotok vs. 70. Santos. 5. the expropriator must enter the property. their size. 1992). the entrance must not be for just a momentary period. 2. and 6. JUDGE LEGASPI. CA. 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. the complaint for expropriation filed in court is sufficient in form and substance. What are the requisites of “taking” in expropriation cases? The Requisites of taking are: a. and 2. INC. 3. shape. b. ILOILO CITY. 4. . COURT OF APPEALS AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. location. the entry must be under warrant of color or title. note that as held in the case of Republic vs. the current value of like proerties. VS. 444 SCRA 269.1987) The factors to be considered in determining the just compensation/market value are: 1. 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. particular case of lands. May 21. December 14. If the expropriation is being done by a Local Government Unit. 141 SCRA 30. the Supreme Court decision in the case of THE CITY OF ILOILO VS. 71.

radio. Every other warnings. 5. he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means---telephone. (Rep. May a private property already used as a private cemetery be expropriated for a public purpose? No. What are the rights of a person under custodial investigation under the “Mahinay Doctrine” or the “Expanded Miranda Doctrine”? The rights are: 1. or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf. The person arrested. 2. and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf. vs. . the owner must be ousted from beneficial use of his land. detained. letter or messenger---with his lawyer (either retained or appointed). 4. if any. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer. any member of his . Castellvi. 6. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer. 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. 73. preferably of his own choice. 349). 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. The person arrested must be informed that. 3.d. 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. 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. one will be provided for him. information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person. at any time. the property must be devoted for public use. and e. a private property which is already devoted to public use may not be expropriated for another public purpose. 40 Phil. Chinese Community. 58 SCRA 336) 72. (City of Manila vs.

9. he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak. obtained in violation of any of the foregoing. 74. the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any other time during the process. Rights of a person under custodial detention. or any medical doctor. he shall forthwith be informed by the arresting police or law enforcement officers to whose custody the person concerned is brought. 11. knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same. of his or her right: . he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel. 8. He must be informed that any statement OR EVIDENCE. the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced. In addition. as the case may be. or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non-governmental organization. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily. otherwise. 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. 10.immediate family. if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer. 7. SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent.. priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel.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. in whole or in part. regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some information or statements. whether inculpatory or exculpatory. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFICER TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED. 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. or the interrogation has begun.

Duenas. therefore. Clearly. custodial investigation refers to the critical pretrial 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. 4. 475 SCRA 248). et al. Are the above rights available to a suspect if he is under investigation by a private person? No.. The protective mantle of section 12. 232 SCRA 53). with the connivance of unscrupulous media . article III does not apply to administrative investigations (People vs. JOSE TING LAN UY. 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. 75. allowed freely to avail of the services of a physician or physicians of choice. The claim that his affidavit is inadmissible in evidence in accordance with section 12 [1] of the Bill of Rights is not tenable. In fact. allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of his family or with his nearest relatives and be visited by them. to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.. Jr. 323 SCRA 589). If the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his or her choice. 334 SCRA 673).1.. the rights enumerated by the accused are not available BEFORE GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATORS ENTER THE PICTURE. Succinctly stated. JR. allowed to communicate freely with his legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction. Zuela. informed of the cause or causes of his detention in the presence of his legal counsel. to be informed of the nature and cause of his arrest. (THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. verbal admission made to a radio announcer who was not a part of the investigation (People vs. 3. and 5. 175 SCRA 216). The ―investigation‖ under said provision refers to ―custodial 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. 426 SCRA 666). 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. 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). These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of the counsel of choice. confession to a private individual (Kimpo vs. Judge Ayson. 2. CA. Ordono.

135405. 2000. G. DANO. . Endino. there was custodial investigation when the police authorities. Spontaneous statements voluntarily given. BARIQUIT. (iii) express. 339 SCRA 515. G. 341 SCRA 600) 77. even without the assistance of a lawyer. Such admission. 117690. an extrajudicial confession must be: (i) voluntary. Are spontaneous admissions made before a person could be informed of his rights during custodial investigation admissible as evidence? Yes. SEPT..R. NOVEMBER 29. NO. as where appellant orally admitted killing the victim before the barangay captain (who is neither a police officer nor a law enforcement agent). When is custodial investigation deemed to have started so as to entitle the suspect to be informed of his rights under the “Mahinay Doctrine” or the “Expanded Miranda 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. upon their arrest of some of the accused. do not fall under custodial investigation. and (iv) in writing.practitioners. immediately asked them regarding their participation in the commission of the crime . does not violate appellant‟s constitutional rights AND THEREFORE ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. (PEOPLE VS. 1. (PEOPLE VS. 78. 353 SCRA 307). 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. even while they were still walking along the highway on their way to the police station. What are the requisites before an extrajudicial confession is admissible? To be admissible in evidence. PEOPLE VS. MAYORGA.R. 76. (ii) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. 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. when the police investigator starts interrogating or exacting confession from the suspect in connection with an alleged offense. 2000). NO. 346 SCRA 458.e. Thus. i.

without a valid waiver of such assistance. is inadmissible in evidence. and (iv) in writing. regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily given. In this case. it was held that the counsel must be present from the inception of the custodial investigation not at any time thereafter. Assistance of counsel must be effective. (PEOPLE VS. No.A suspect‘s confession. G. 117690. the lawyer who assists the suspect under custodial interrogation should be of the latter's own choice. G. SEPT. (iii) express. whether verbal or non-verbal. 2000).R. Not only was the accused subjected to custodial investigation without counsel. 336 SCRA 632. PATUNGAN. the mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement of assistance of counsel. even if appellant‘s confession were gospel truth. JIMENEZ. 354 SCRA 413. Also. 82604. 1. vigilant and independent. she did not ask Marcos if he was willing to . (ii) made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. 80. 1991. SAMOLDE. 128551. A suspect‘s confession. when taken without the assistance of counsel. whether verbal or non-verbal. DANO. is inadmissible in evidence. PEOPLE VS. 31. an extrajudicial confession must be: (i) voluntary. she was the police officers' own choice. when taken without the assistance of counsel.R. 339 SCRA 515. 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. regardless of the absence of coercion or the fact that it had been voluntarily given. without a valid waiver of such assistance. NO. To be admissible in evidence. December 12. he was likewise denied effective assistance of counsel during the taking of his extra-judicial confession. 2000. even if appellant‘s confession were gospel truth. 79. Is the presence of a lawyer to assist the suspect during custodial investigation sufficient to comply with the requirements of the Constitution? No. the former judge whose assistance was requested by the police was evidently not of Marcos Jimenez' own choice. G. As held in PEOPLE VS. From what time must the counsel assist the suspect during custodial investigation? Who must choose such counsel? In PEOPLE V.R. NO. JUL. not one foisted on him by the police investigators or other parties.

These are: a. TAN. force. In PEOPLE VS. admissible in evidence? No. threat. March 3. While she asked him if he had voluntarily given the statements contained in the typewritten document. III of the Constitution? The two (2) kinds of involuntary or coerced confessions under Art. are not applicable when the suspect makes an spontaneous statement. GALIT. however. 1997 when the accused made a voluntary and verbal confession to the Municipal Mayor that he committed the crime imputed to him. c. it was held that even if the confession of the accused speaks the truth. 135 SCRA 465. What are the two (2) kinds of coerced or involuntary confessions under Section 12. The above requirements. 81. his uncounselled confession is admissible in evidence. In order that a confession is admissible. 286 SCRA 207. the confession must be made with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel. PEOPLE VS. it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the absence of coercion or even if it was voluntarily given. the confession must be express. PANFILO CABILES. Is the extrajudicial confession of a suspect obtained without the assistance of a lawyer. III. the confession must be in writing. the following requisites must be present: a. Section 12 of the Constitution. the confession must be voluntary. 82. BUT GIVEN IN AN ORDINARY MANNER WHEREBY THE ACCUSED ORALLY ADMITTED HAVING COMMITTED THE CRIME. 284 SCRA 199. and . Art. As such. ANDAN. this is far from being substantial compliance with the constitutional duty of police investigators during custodial interrogation. if it was made without the assistance of counsel. Furthermore. and PEOPLE VS. the former judge was not present when Marcos was being interrogated by the police.have her represent him. b. intimidation. violence. confession which are the product of third degree methods such as torture. This was the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PEOPLE VS. This is not the mode of solicitation of legal assistance contemplated by the Constitution. and d. but speaks of gospel truth. not elicited through questioning by the authorities.

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. 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. Atty. OBRERO. 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.‖ 84. (P. DE LA TORRE VS. 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. Gamboa vs. the SC in the case of PEOPLE VS. there is no need for him to be assisted by a lawyer. In fact. while being investigated by other policemen of the same police station because the interest of the police is naturally adverse to the accused. 332 SCRA 190 83. the Fiscal could not have protected the rights of the . ( P vs. CA. (PEOPLE VS. De los Reyes. then he is not under custodial investigation and therefore. 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. HATTON) 86.b. Judge Cruz. vs. Alegria. September 28. 294 SCRA 196 and PEOPLE VS. 162 SCRA 642. 157 SCRA 261. JANUARIO. 332 SCRA 190) 85. those which are given without the benefit of Miranda Warnings. Usman Hassan. OBRERO. 1990) Also.

Pia. DOMINGO REYES. ET AL.R. No. we held that the following factors indicate voluntariness of an extra-judicial confession: (1) where the accused failed to present credible evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on their persons. thereby ruling out the possibility that these were involuntarily made. As held in the case of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. (2) where they failed to complain to the officers who administered the oaths. While under custodial investigation by Col. G. since the Fiscal is there for the private complainant. Matos-Viduaya. March 17. 86-b. 229 Phil. Was the confessions obtained during the custodial investigation admissible in evidence? Yes. Their extra-judicial confessions clearly state how appellants and their . (3) where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment. What are the evidence of voluntariness in the suspect’s extrajudicial confession making it admissible in evidence? May such confession be used against a co-accusd? Up to what extent? In People vs.. even if they are known to each other.suspect. vs. the Supreme Court held that since the evidence shows that the lawyers of PAOCTF assisted them from the start up to the end of their custodial investigation and that their rights were protected. It should also be noted that the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores are replete with details on the manner in which the kidnapping was committed. the same is admissible as evidence especially so that there is no evidence of compulsion. 178300.[43][93] In People v. Pia. 2009. September 11. The appellants were arrested by the PAOCTF for Kidnapping and Murder of two (2) minor children of a businessman from Bulacan. (P. the Supreme Court enumerated the following as evidence of voluntariness in the extrajudicial confession of a suspect: Their physical examination reports certify that no external signs of physical injury or any form of trauma were noted during their examination. and (5) where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician to buttress their claim. No. the lawyers given to assist them tare the lawyers of PAOCTF.R. 2009. (4) where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies. 1990) 86-a. 178300. G. 577 and PEOPLE VS. REYES. Cesar Mancao. March 17.

With respect to appellant Reyes‘s claim that the extra -judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores cannot be used in evidence against him.[45][97] we ruled that where the confession is used as circumstantial evidence to show the probability of participation by the co-conspirator. RTC 2 BORONGAN. jurisprudence makes it admissible as corroborative evidence of other facts that tend to establish the guilt of his co-accused. March 20. the Supreme Court held that though the extrajudicial confession of the accused was declared inadmissible for violation of his right to counsel. 125333. If the extrajudicial admission or confession of the accused is declared inadmissible as evidence. 2002. 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 . then he can still be convicted of the crime charged. ROLANDO FELIXMINIA y CAMACHO. The voluntariness of a confession may be inferred from its language if. Mahinay. In People vs. the confession exhibits no suspicious circumstances tending to cast doubt upon its integrity. May a convicted person be released from jail through recognizance? No. during and after its occurrence. SAMAR. 475 SCRA 175. and [2] the totality of such circumstances eliminated beyond doubt the possibility of his innocence. GR No. 88. it being replete with details which could only be supplied by the accused. JUDGE ARNULFO BUGTAS. Encipido[46][98] we elucidated as follows: 87. [b] the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. if there are evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In People v. and [c] the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. like circumstantial evidence. that confession is receivable as evidence against a co-accused. 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. Alvarez.[44][96] In People v. In PEOPLE VS. In ATTY. upon its face. JULIANA ADALIM-WHITE VS. it was held that conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence provided the following requisites are present: [a] there is more than one circumstance. we have ruled that although an extra-judicial confession is admissible only against the confessant.cohorts planned the kidnapping as well as the sequence of events before. must the accused be acquitted as a matter of right? No.

THEY DO NOT APPLY TO A PERSON CONVICTED BY FINAL JUDGMENT AND ALREADY SERVING SENTENCE. 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. 483 SCRA 290).before the completion of the minimum period of the sentence imposed upon him. The Rules provides for four (4) ways of posting bond and it is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge to require cash bond only. Section 24. May an accused charged of a capital offense and the evidence of guilt is strong be granted bail? Yes. III of the 1987 Constitution applies only to criminal cases. This is so because of the possibility of flight. As held in UNITED STATES VS. April. then the accused may be allowed to post bail. THE PRESIDING JUDGE. JUDGE PURUGGANAN & MARK JIMENEZ. (Almeda vs. The purpose of the bond is to assure the court of the presence of the accused during the trial of his case. RTC 17. OLALIA. (EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ VS. MANILA. May a judge require “cash bond” only? No. (BELTRAN VS. 90. not in extradition proceedings. May a person subject of extradition from another country and where the cases against him in said country are bailable. 389 SCRA 623 through former Chief justice Panganiban. 89. This is so because the constitutional provision on the right to bail under Art. 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. BUT IN THE CASE OF GOVERNMENT OF HONGKONG VS. be allowed to post bail pending the extradition hearings? No. 2007) 91. THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE. If the probability of ―flight‖ is nil. 66 SCRA 38). It is patently erroneous to release a convict on recognizance. 521 . Villaluz. the Supreme Court held that a person facing extradition proceedings is not entitled to bail even if the crime he was charged of in a foreign country is bailable. Rule 114 provides that there shall no bail for a convict after final judgment.

DE LOS SANTOS. in a 9-6 decision. 355 SCRA 415) 94. 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. 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 presumption of innocence. then a reverse order . 322 SCRA 160 (The Mark Jimenez Case) . Otherwise. his right to due process will be violated. 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. on Motion for Reconsideration in the same case. the same may not be cancelled without notice and hearing. RTC 17. it was held that the potential extradite may be granted bail if he can prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.(PEOPLE VS. To be required to present his evidence first would be making him prove his innocence and not the State proving his guilt. THE PRESIDING JUDGE. However. if the accused does not object to such a procedure. 483 SCRA 290) 93. is the respondent therein entitled to notice and hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him? No. 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. However. What is the “EQUIPOISE RULE”? If the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced. Pepito. In SECRETARY OF JUSTICE VS. JUDGE LANTION. if bail was granted to an extradite. May the court reverse the order of trial in a criminal case? No. such would violate the right of the accused to presumption of innocence. 92.SCRA 470. MANILA. (Alejandro vs. “Clear and convincing evidence” is an evidence with a standard lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but more than preponderance of evidence. In extradition cases. (EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ VS. the constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scale of justice in favor of the accused and he should be acquitted from the crime charged. 96 SCRA 322) However.

(PEOPLE VS. It must be performed with all the zeal and vigor at his command to protect and safeguard the accused‘s fundamental rights. must not be taken lightly.l986) In fact it should be noted that under the newly adopted 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure (Sec. if he desires. However. 3e).of trial is allowed by the Rules. can he also refuse to appear during the hearings of his case? No. Manolo Brotonel of the PAO cannot go unnoticed. when the accused admits the act or omission charged in the complaint or information but interposes a lawful defense.. JR. If the accused has the right to be present during the trial of his case. especially that of a defense counsel. During arraignment. 324 SCRA 490) 96. 125 SCRA 269) 97. It is discernible in [a] his refusal to cross-examine Oleby Nadera (the complainant for RAPE). Rule 119)the said procedure is now expressly sanctioned. a lawyer‘s duty. promulgation of the decision and when he is to be identified by the witnesses for the prosecution. 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. he admits that he is the one being referred to. Military Commission. Thus: "However. 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? . NADERA. July 10. the order of trial may be modified accordingly. (Aquino vs. he must be present. P vs. [b] the manner in which he conducted Maricris Nadera‘s cross examination. The cavalier attitude of Atty. 63 SCRA 546. 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." 95. Judge. (Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan. and [c] his failure not only to present evidence for the accused but to inform the accused of his right to do so. 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. Hence.

reasons for such delay. SANDIGANBAYAN. length of delay.In JAIME BERNAT VS. 2002. During the 8-year period prior to April 19. 289 SCRA 721. it was held that the right to speedy trial is violated only if the proceedings were attended by vexatious. and Prejudiced caused by the delay. and 3. Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused. (DUTERTE VS. petitioner did not complain about the long delay in deciding his case. capricious and oppressive delays. 2. 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. May 20. The factors to consider in determining whether or not such right has been violated: 1. ANGCHANGCO VS. certain factors shall be considered and balanced to determine if there is delay. SANDIGANBAYAN. Reasons for the delay. as follows: Length of the delay. SANDIGANBAYAN. As held in the case of DE LA PENA VS. 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. The determination of whether the delays are of said nature is relative and cannot be based on mere mathematical reckoning of time. 2004. Although it took about 8 years before the trial of this case was resumed. Particular regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 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. assertion or failure to assert such rights by the accused and the prejudice caused by the delay. 98. . such delay did not amount to violation of petitioner‘s right to speedy trial considering that such delay was not attributable to the prosecution. 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. OMBUDSMAN.

7 of the Speedy Trial Act of 1998. AUG. (P vs. 164 SCRA 717. he could be convicted of Murder.R. 150 SCRA 653) 100. HOW. NO. (SUMBANG VS. (Ortigas. BLANCO VS. only the portion of his direct . 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. 64 SCRA 610) If the witness was partially examined. 140188. Lufthansa. 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 crossexamination? A witness who did not return to court for his cross-examination would render his entire testimony inadmissible for being hearsay. 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. the accused was duly informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.(ii) Speedy Trial Act of 1998. It likewise violated the right of confrontation on the part of the accused. 140863. Resavaga. This is so because it is the body of the Information that is binding. HON. 22. 2000. 2000). SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT. vs. 3. 337 SCRA 227. As such. GEN. COURT MARTIAL. CA. G. 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. The authority of the Secretary of Justice to review resolutions of his 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. 2000. 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.R. 136757 – 58. INC. P vs. SANDIGANBAYAN. AUG. Crisologo. 338 SCRA 51. 159 SCRA 426) 101. NOV. 99.R. NO. G. not the caption thereof and therefore. (Sales vs. NOS. JR. 27. 346 SCRA 108. G.

103. 132045.R. forcing a person to give a sample of his urine to determine whether a woman is pregnant (Villaflor vs. Generally.( P vs. 339 SCRA . Summers.‖ As such. 2000. 154 SCRA 610. 145) or under the influence of prohibited drugs (PEOPLE VS. May the accused be presented by the prosecution as the latter’s witness? No. NOS. The accused was notified of the hearing. Further. NO. Such witness is beyond the jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts. 24 SCRA 663) 105.testimony where he was cross-examined shall be admissible as evidence. 339 SCRA 86. Hon.02. the proceedings shall be null and void. Seneris. (Chavez vs. Garcia. 99 SCRA 92) 102. CONTINENTE. 25. G. 98 SCRA 514) 104. 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: The accused was duly arraigned. Such would violate the right of the accused against self-incrimination and if such happened. 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. Tang Teng. (Cavili vs. and The accused‘s absence [during the trial] is unjustifiable. BANIHIT. it applies only to ―testimonial compulsion. CA. G. AUG. whether a person is suffering from sexually transmitted disease (US vs. 23 Phil. Florendo. 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. 41 Phil.R. 100801. Fajardo vs. PEOPLE VS. 62). to what kind of evidence does the right against selfincrimination applies? Generally.

64 SCRA 131) 109. the right against self-incrimination will be violated by said act. Gatmaitan. Though the same does not require testimonial compulsion. 110. 93 Phil. Masangkay. This is so because the testimony was taken while she was still in the government and as such. 155 SCRa 327. 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. Munoz. the Supreme Court held in . AUG. How about forcing a person to give a sample of his handwriting?. Gavarra. having received her salary for the day when the testimony was taken. (P vs. Likewise forcing one to try a pair of shoes. In fact. 2000) does not violate the person‘s right against self-incrimination. Is death as a penalty a cruel or unuasual punishment? No. 570) 107. 647). 170 SCRA 107 that it was merely suspended. Does the right against self-incrimination applicable to civil and administrative cases also? 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. (Aclaracion vs. Atencio. 50 Phil. pants or shirt does not fall under the above proscription. it was her obligation to transcribe the same. Intino. This is so because it involves the use of the intelligence of the person. P vs. 155 SCRA 113. 156 SCRA 242. 1988 it held in People vs. 106. Is the Death Penalty already abolished by the 1987 Constitution? While the Supreme Court answered the same in the affirmative in the cases of P vs. September 26. 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. 108. Estoista.1. P vs. Samson. P vs. (Beltran vs. 25. 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.

this rule admits of two (2) exceptions: 1) the motion to dismiss is based on insufficiency of evidence or Demurrer to Evidence. may the dismissal result in double jeopardy? Yes in two (2) instances. 255 SCRA 238.ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE that death through Lethal Injection is the most humane way of implementing the death penalty. the correct description of what happened is that the accused was ―acquitted‖ and not ―the case was dismissed with his consent‖. In these two (2) instances. if the dismissal is through the instance of the accused or with his express consent. (PEOPLE VS. 111. As a general rule. 244 SCRA 202 and PEOPLE VS. TAMPAL. What are the requisites before an accused may validly invoke double jeopardy? There is double jeopardy when there is: [1] valid complaint of information. however. 355 SCRA 1) 112. It must be pointed out. However. or the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused. that in PEOPLE VS. 355 SCRA 1) -double jeopardy has set in. (PEOPLE VS.‖ It is . [3] the accused was validly arraigned. and 2) the motion to dismiss is based on the denial of the accused‟s right to speedy trial. LEVISTE. [2] filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. ALMARIO. If the dismissal was with the express consent of the accused. and [4] the accused was convicted or acquitted. there is no double jeopardy. ALMARIO. 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.

acquittal or conviction in one shall bar prosecution from the other. After presenting his evidence to prove “incomplete self defense”. he was . 115. After arraignment. Has double jeopardy set in? Yes. then double jeopardy has set in. 113. (PEOPLE VS. the Fiscal filed a 3 rd information for grave coercion before the MTC. As such. the court acquitted him because what was allegedly prov en by him was complete self-defense. The accused was arraigned of homicide and entered a plea of guilty but prayed that he be given the chance to prove incomplete self-defense which the court granted. There was no valid arraignment. 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. 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. If an act is punished by law and an ordinance. This is so because his plea was one of guilty and yet. RELOVA. the case was dismissed because it was found out that the same has prescribed because it was filed after more than 60 days. The accused pleaded double jeopardy. The Fiscal filed another information based on the Revised Penal Code. Another information for the same offense was filed with the RTC which was likewise dismissed because of lack of jurisdiction. 148 SCRA 292) 114. Since the accused was already arraigned in the 1st information before the MTC which has jurisdiction over the same and the case was subsequently dismissed without his express consent. The Judge dismissed it without any motion form the accused because the case is allegedly outside the MTC’s jurisdiction. Is he correct? Yes. The accused was charged of grave coercion before the MTC and was duly arraigned.only when there is a clear violation of the accused‘s right to speedy trial that the dismissal results in double jeopardy. The accused was charged of theft of electricity based on the City Ordinance of Batangas City. the government can no longer charge the accused of the same crime under the Revised Penal Code since double jeopardy has set in.

After the presentation of the alleged “newly-discovered evidence”. he has to be re-arraigned for him to enter a plea of ―not guilty‖ in order that he could be validly acquitted. This is so because if the accused appeals the decision. VELASCO. So even if the court obviously erred in the appreciation of the evidence resulting in a decision of acquittal instead of conviction.R. In this case. May the government appeal a judgment of acquittal or for the increase of the penalty imposed? No since double jeopardy has set in. However. NO. 116. 127444. SEPT. the Supreme Court held that indeed. appeal would put the accused in double jeopardy. it was insufficient to overturn the evidence of guilt as proven by the prosecution. it was not sufficient to overturn the evidence of guilt as shown by the prosecution‘s evidence. 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. The accused was convicted of frustrated murder. In the case of P vs. However. Judge Hernando. Court. an acquittal is final and unappealable on the ground of double jeopardy. (PEOPLE VS. As mandated by the Constitution. the accused was acquitted. What is the "Supervening Fact Doctrine. statutes and cognate jurisprudence. he filed a Motion for New Trial based on a “newly -discovered evidence” which was granted by the court. though the decision was erroneous. if the accused was the one who appealed the decision of the CFI convicting him of homicide (though he was charged of murder). 118. the same will be subject to a complete re-examination of the evidence on record.acquitted. May the prosecution appeal the acquittal since the evidence presented was not really a newlydiscovered evidence but a forgotten one and that even assuming that the same is a newly-discovered evidence. 13. Within 15 days from promulgation. HON. G. 113 SCRA 217) 117. Sandiganbayan. Mun. the evidence presented was not ―newly-discovered evidence‖ and that assuming it to be so. 340 SCRA 207. the appellate court may convict him of murder if the evidence warrants and that the lower court misappreciated the evidence. double jeopardy has set in and the government could no longer appeal the decision." . as in Galman vs. (Mazo vs. 2000). 108 SCRA 121.

alters the situation of a person to his disadvantage. Adil. c. 268. 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure. which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed. 35 SCRA 429. Tarok. G. 46 O. What are the different forms of ex-post facto law? In order that a law is an ex post facto law. 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. ROMEO ACOP & FRANCISCO ZUBIA. (Section 7. 1999) 120. MEJIA VS.. the same may not be invoked as when the questioned law involves the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which is not a penal law. 73 Phil. ET AL. City Court of Manila.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. 260. P vs.R. 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. Tac-an. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled. JR. and P vs. Buling. 121 SCRA 637 119. e. such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal. People. RA 8249 is not a penal law. in relation to the offense or its consequences. Villasis. f. d..G. the same must be one— a. (PANFILO M. January 20. Melo vs. 107 Phil. 85 Phil. 712. Otherwise. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction which is not penal in character. LACSON VS. 766. 182 SCRA 601. g. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. . No. P vs. and punishes such action. P vs. which makes an act done criminal before the passing of the law and which was innocent when committed. which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed. 76 SCRA 462. Rule 117. THE SANDIGANBAYAN. P vs. 128096. vs. b. Ex post facto law prohibits the retrospectivity of penal laws. or a proclamation of amnesty (KAY VILLEGAS KAMI. P. every law which. When may the “ex-post facto law” rule be invoked? Only if the law sought to be applied is a ―criminal law or penal‖.

[13][40] Section 18. [16][43] Section 20 and 21. [8][34] See United States v. 59-61. S. 6th Ed. Totten v. 62 SCRA 275. Cir. 65 Phil. BARRIOS. The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.App. 88 Phil. [34] Tañada v.S. [3][29] 418 U. 333 U. 110 Phil. G. No. G. 96-3124. Vda. 117. [19][48] Supra. Waterman Steamship Corp. Tuvera. 40004. 1975. R. p. G. 275 Ky 91. supra. and it is sufficient that the petitioner is a citizen interested in the execution of the law. 133 (1998). Inc. 6-8 (1953). [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] Province of Batangas v. 2947. Article VII. Practice and Recent Developments at pp. No. 92 U.C.S. January 26. A Commentary. Nos. [10][36] See Friedman v. 136 SCRA 27. Chicago v. Airlines. May 29.S. 105. 318 U. 53. 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. 1. 421 SCRA 21. 152774.S.S. supra. 1945 (Unreported). 1997. SANDIGANBAYAN. 160 SCRA 457. United States. January 11. 903. G. Royal Cargo Corporation v. 190 SCRA 686. TAN VS. Serv. 72119. where the Court held that where the question is one of public duty and the enforcement of a public right. 302 U. Court of Appeals.J. Law.R. Civil Aeronautics Board. 1991.3d 1108. No. 2004. 368 (1949) The Court held: ―Above all. [15][42] Section 19. 1984). where the Court held that in cases involving an assertion of a public right. [11][38] 360 Phil. 211 SCRA 241). United States. p. ******************************************* [1] The examinee is presumed to have mastered the Constitutional provisions. ..R. 64 Fed. 120 SW2d 765 (1938). 738 F. 125 (1951). v. 633. November 7. April 24. [2][28] CRS Report for Congress. the people are the real party in interest. Salonga v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shields.R. [6][32] CRS Report for Congress. 106-107 (1875). Reynolds. 103055-56. [7][33] 365 F. 63915. Civil Service Commission. 18-19. May 27. 1959 (Unreported).S. if we must. Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History. Law Practice and Recent Developments.R.‖ [33] L-No. 446. 331 (1960). technicalities of procedure.D. 2. [17][44] CRS Report for Congress. Article VII. 183. No. 111. June 17. 77 Phil.. 361 U. Law.S. Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History. Article VII. [12][39] Supra. PEOPLE VS. 1012 (1947). [18][45] Bernas. [32] 84 Phil.C.S. 141. Article VII. Inc. Black‘s Law Dictionary. 1987. Legaspi v. [5][31] Id.. Presidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History. 429 SCRA 736. 150 SCRA 530. Practice and Recent Developments at p. the transcendental importance to the public of these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely. 2d 1336. G. Romulo. 56 (1937).R. 2003 Ed. No. 353 U. 103. 683.R..1341-43 (D. brushing aside. [14][41] Section 16. De Dabao v. 2004. 1985. Warner Barnes & Co.PAMARAN. [9][35] Roviaro v. January 31. [4][30] In Re: Sealed Case No. Evid. G. 941. 345 U.

87636. Macaraig. 1995. 377. Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines. Inc.R. 100308. G.Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas. 191 SCRA 452. v. No. July 9. 208 SCRA 420. 1991. 2002. Albano v. November 19. No. 2002. 1998. 88291. has the personality to file the instant petition. of Agrarian Reform. at 19. as the issues involved. 1989. May 31. G. No. Inc. 147780. 100318. 2004. 138570.R. pertains to illegal expenditure of public money. it has the discretion to waive the requirement. No. No. 133250. Comelec. 83551. February 3. 1991. 384 SCRA 152.R.R. 250 SCRA 130. 138680. G. No. G. Comelec. G. May 10. 175 SCRA 264. 147810. April 21.. 1989. G. Osmeña v. G. 400 Phil. No. 151445. L. v.R. No.R. April 11. 574 (1986). 147799. 5 September 1991. 1992. not covered by the definition of a ―proper party. Gonzales v. 230 Phil. 1206 (2000). 138698. G. 100417. Supra. 201 SCRA 364. nonetheless considering its important role in the economic development of the country and the magnitude of the financial consideration involved. where the Court held that objections to taxpayers‘ lack of personality to sue may be disregarded in determining the validity of the VAT law..R. in determining the validity of the implementation of the CARP.100420. 163 SCRA 371. No. Santos v. 159085. 199 SCRA 750. necessitates the brushing aside of the procedural requirement of locus standi. [43][93] [44][96] [45][97] [46][98] Id. No. 138572.R. G. No. 197 SCRA 771. 118910. Maceda 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.‖ nonetheless. 147781. where the Court held that where serious constitutional questions are involved. 2000. . Sandiganbayan. G.R. 560. public interest was definitely involved and this clothed petitioner with the legal personality under the disclosure provision of the Constitution to question it. 289 SCRA 337. 78742. No. 2001. the ―transcendental importance‖ to the public of the cases involved demands that they be set tled promptly and definitely. G. June 30. October 10. 357 SCRA 756. 380 SCRA 739.R.R. 81311. De Guia v. 175 SCRA 343.R. where the Court held that petitioner as a taxpayer. 421 SCRA 656. G. 138587.R. 1988. G. Macaraig.R. May 6. Jr. July 11. brushing aside technicalities of procedures. 104712. 88451. 1175. Nos. where the Court ruled that while petitioners are strictly speaking. 342 SCRA 449. Jr. Tan. July 30. November 16. Reyes. No. No. 132922. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] G. 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. 1990. July 14. where the Court held that while no expenditure of public funds was involved under the questioned contract. Sec.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful