You are on page 1of 42

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.

0, 2016]
deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

(This is an unofficial revision of/update to Atty. Victoria Loanzons notes for the 2015
bar exams. Notes in red are opinions of lecturers and/or of authors on the subject, or
informed guesses/conjectures of the reviewee and his friends.)

POLITICAL LAW
Political law deals w/ the organization & operations of the governmental organs of the State, &
defines the relations of the State w/ the inhabitants of its territory.

THE CONSTITUTION
A constitution is the fundamental law of a nation/state:
1. Establishing the character & conception of its government
2. Regulating, distributing, & limiting the functions of its different departments
3. Prescribing the extent & manner of the exercise of sovereign powers
The Philippine Constitution
Current:
1987 Constitution (ratified Feb. 2, 1987)
Previous
1. 1899 (Malolos)
:
2. 1935 (Commonwealth)
3. 1973 (Marcosian)
4. 1986 (Freedom provisional constitution)
The 1897 (Biak-na-Bato) & 1943 (Japanese) Constitutions are not included as:
(a) The 1897 Constitution was ratified by members of the Katipunan only
(b) The govt during the Japanese occupation is not viewed as legitimate
Parts of the Constitution:
1. Constitution of liberty: Bill of Rights (III) (see Bill of Rights)
2. Constitution of government: govt organization/functions (VI-XI) (see The State)
3. Constitution of sovereignty: method(s) of amendment (XVII) (see below)
Art. XVII, 1987 CONST. (amendments & revisions)
Amendment & revision, distinguished
AMENDMENT
REVISION
Isolated/piecemeal change only
Revamp/rewriting of the whole instrument
How instituted
(a) Amendment
- Through an initiatory act of Congress:
i.
Sec. 1: as a constituent assembly (con-ass) ( vote of all members)
ii.
Sec. 3: calling a constitutional convention (con-con)
vote of all members; or
By simple majority, to submit to the electorate WON to call a con-con
- Sec. 2: by peoples initiative upon petition of at least 12% of the total no. of
registered voters (w/ at least 3% of voters in every electoral district)
Can only be done once every 5 years (from 2/11/87)
[!] Case: Lambino vs. COMELEC (minute reso. dismissing MR) R.A. 6735
(see The State for a discussion on R.A. 6735 [Initiative & Referendum Act])
(b) Revision by con-ass & con-con only
Case: Lambino vs. COMELEC CONST. cannot be revised via peoples initiative
1

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Ratification process
(a) For con-con/con-ass: by plebiscite conducted by COMELEC 60 DAYS, 90 DAYS
after approval of amendment simple majority of votes cast
(b) For peoples initiative: (same manner, same simple majority, same period but
reckoned from COMELECs certification of sufficiency of the petition)
Judicial review of the amending process SC may exercise judicial review over any
matter re: process of amending/revising CONST. (Case: Lambino vs. COMELEC)
Self-executing/non-self-executing provisions
GR:
Presumptively self-executing (i.e. self-executing rather than non-self-executing)
XPN: When the contrary is clearly intended
Cases: (a) Taada vs. Angara Art. II & part of Art. XII are not self-executing
(b) British Tobacco vs. CIR Art. VI, Sec. 28(1), re: evolving a progressive
system of taxation, is also not self-executing
Other constitutional matters (deemed not included in other sections of this reviewer)
1. Natural resources
Cases (a) Oposa vs. Factoran intergenerational responsibility
:
(b) MMDA vs. Concerned Citizens of Manila Bay issuance of a writ of
continuing mandamus to ensure the quality of water in manila = compliant
w/ mandate under Art. II, Sec. 16, CONST.
(c) Resident Marine Mammals of Taon Strait vs. Reyes any Filipino
citizen, as a steward of nature, may bring suit to enforce envi. laws
Rules governing EDU (exploration, development & utilization) of natural resources
(a) Citizenship requirement, Art. XII, Sec. 2, Art. XII, Sec. 7
(b) Classification, size and conditions for grant of public lands (Art. XII, Sec. 3)
(c) Conservation of forest lands and national parks (Art. XII, Sec. 4)
(d) Protection of ancestral lands of indigenous cultural communities (Art. XII, Sec. 5)
2. Ownership of private lands
(a) Citizenship requirements (Art. XII, Sec. 7)
(b) Exception(Art. XII, Sec. 8)
(c) Agrarian reform(Art. XIII, Sections 4-8)
(d) Urban land reform and housing(Art. XIII, Sections 9-10)
3. Social justice
(a) Labor, Art. XIII, Sec. 3;
(b) Agrarian and natural resources reform, Art. XIII, Sections 4-8
4. Urban land reform and housing, Art. XIII, Sections 9-10
5. Health, Art. XIII, Sections 11-13, Special Role of Women in national building and
maternal function, Art. XIII, Sec. 14
6. Peoples organizations, Art. XIII, Sec. 15
7. Education
(a) Right to quality education, Art. XIV, Sec. 1
Miriam College v. CA, 348SCRA 215. Right of a school to prescribe rules governing
discipline of students.
(b) Educational mandate of the state, Art. XIV, Sec. 2, Sec. 5
University of San Agustin v. CA 270 SCRA 761. Students are governed bythe
rules set forth in the student handbook.
(c) The educational system, Art. XIV, Sec. 3, Sec. 4

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Ateneo v. Capulong 222 SCRA 643. It is the national government shall will provide
the overall policy on education to meet national goals.
8. Language, Art. XIV, Sections 6-9
National Language: Filipino
Official Language: Filipino and English
Auxiliary official languages: regional languages
Voluntary and optional languages: Spanish and Arabic
9. Science and technology, Art. XIV, Sections 10-13
10. Arts and Culture, Art. XIV, Sections 14-18
11. Sports, Art. XIV, Sec. 19
12. The Family, Art. XV
Imbong et. al. v. Ochoa et. al. (Consolidated Petitions) G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2013.
In ruling that the RH bill is constitutional, the Court reiterated that the family is the basic
unit of society.

THE STATE
A state is a community of persons, more or less numerous, permanently occupying a fixed
territory, & possessed of a government, organized for political ends, to which the great majority
of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
Elements: people + territory + government + sovereignty
1. PEOPLE
(a) As inhabitants: Art. XIII, Sec. 1; Art. III, Sec. 2
Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, 9 SCRA 27 (1963): The state has the right to
exclude aliens in its territory. The President of the Philippines is given the discretion
to deport aliens who are considered undesirable.
(b) As citizens: Preamble, Art. II, Sections 1 and 4; Art. III, Sec. 7
(c) As sources of sovereignty: Art. VII, Sec. 4
Art. IV, 1987 CONST. (citizenship)
Natural-born citizens Art. IV, Sec. 2
Public Officers who must be natural born citizens: (Please commit to memory.)
-President Art. VII, Sec. 2
- Vice President
- Members of Congress Art. VI, Sections 3 and 6
- Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate courts, Art. VIII, Sec. 7 (1)
- Ombudsman and his deputies, Art. XI, Sec. 8
- Members of the Constitutional Commission, Art. IX, B, Sec. 1 (1); C, Sec. (1);
and D, Sec. 1(1)
-Members of the Central Monetary Authority, Art. XII, Sec. 20
- Members of Commission on Human Rights Art. XIII, sec. 17 (2)
Former natural born citizens as transferees of private lands, Art. XII, Sec.8
Republic v. Batugas, G.R. No. 183110, October 7, 2013. A Petition for judicial
declaration of Philippine citizenship is different from naturalization under C.A. 473. In the
former, the petitioner asserts his Philippine citizenship while in the latter, the petitioner
admits he is an alien.

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

DOJ Secretary v. et. al. v. Pennisi, G.R. No. 169958. When evidence submitted by the
deportee is conclusive of his citizenship, the right to immediate judicial review should be
recognized and the courts may enjoin the deportation proceedings.
Naturalized citizens under Com. Act No. 473
Who are qualified to be naturalized? Sec. 2
When is the 10-year residence requirement reduced to 5 years? Sec. 3
Who are disqualified to be naturalized? Sec. 4
Declaration of Intention, Sec. 5
Procedure, Sections 7-8
When decision is executed, Sec. 1
Effect on wife and minor children, Sec. 15
Denaturalization, Sec. 18
Republic v. Karry Lao Ong, G.R. No. 175430, June 18, 2012. Bare assertions cannot
discharge the burden of proof required of an applicant for naturalization.
Republic v. Li Ching Chung, G.R. No. 197450, March 20, 2013. Where a foreigner
seeking Philippine citizenship fails to follow the period to file his petition, the Petition for
Naturalization must be dismissed.
Citizenship by legislative act
Loss and Reacquisition of Citizenship. Art. IV, Sec. 3, Sec. 2
Dual Citizenship: R.A. No. 9139 The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000
Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC et al., G.R. no. 198742, August 10, 2012. Foreign
citizen must be renounced through an affidavit duly sowrn before an officer authorized to
administer oath.
Macquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013. The act of using a foreign
passport does not divest one of his Filipino citizenship, which he acquired by
repatriation. However by representing himself as a foreign citizen, he voluntarily reverted
to his earlier status as a dual citizen.
R.A. No. 9225 Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003
In Re: Petition to Re-acquire Privilege to Practice Law, Epifanio Muneses, A.M.
No.2112, July 24, 2012. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice
his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper authority for a license or
permit to engage in such practice.
R. A. No. 9189 Overseas Voting Law
Nicolas- Lewis v. COMELEC , 497 SCRA 649: Overseas Filipinos qualified to vote
under the R.A. 9189 need not have one year actual physical residence in the
Philippines to exercise their right of suffrage.
2. TERRITORY
Art. I, 1987 CONST. (national territory)
(a) The PH archipelago, w/ all the waters & islands embraced therein
(b) All other territories over w/c PH has sovereignty/jurisdiction
(c) Territorial sea, seabed, subsoil, insular shelves, other submarine areas
-(a) & (b) consist of terrestrial, fluvial, & aerial domains
-(b) covers the 200-mile EEZ per P.D. 1599
-Waters around/between/connecting PH islands = (treated as) internal waters
R.A. No. 9522 (Baselines Law) provides for 1 straight baseline around the
archipelago & separate baselines for regimes of islands outside the former
The Kalayaan Islands & Bajo de Masinloc (i.e. Scarborough Shoal) are regimes
of islands over w/c PH exercises sovereignty & jurisdiction
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
4

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Case: Magallona vs. Ermita (re: R.A. 9522, cf. UNCLOS III)
(a) Does compliance w/ UNCLOS III lead to a loss of PH territory? NO. It has none
to do w/ acquisition/loss of territory; only w/ water-land ratio archipelagic baselines
(b) Would compliance w/ UNCLOS III lead to loss of PH sovereignty/jurisdiction
over Kalayaan & Scarborough? NO. It actually provides for baseline extension!
(c) Will allowance of unhampered access of vessels in PH waters undermine PH
sovereignty? NO. PH actually is in a better position to regulate now! (see below)
(d) Does compliance w/ UNCLOS III mean subservience, reduction of
sovereignty? NO. The issue partakes of a political question, but either way,
Congress has placed PH in a better position, making known to the world the extent
of PH maritime rights
(e) UNCLOS III = custom (Case: Arigo vs. Swift)
Maritime regimes (under the Constitution & the UNCLOS)
(a) INTERNAL WATERS:
- Internal waters per se (e.g. lakes, rivers, bays, etc.)
- Waters around/between/connecting PH islands, regardless of breadth/dimension
Re: right of innocent passage
GR:
No right of innocent passage for foreign vessels!
XPN: Art. 42(2), UNCLOS: warships enjoy a right of innocent passage when a
portion of the territorial waters of a costal state is used for intl navigation!
Suspendable by the coastal state on ground of national security
(publication reqd for effectivity!)
Art. 39(1)(a), UNCLOS: warships, etc., while exercising the right of innocent
passage, must proceed w/o delay! (cf. Art. 18(2): delay may be justified if
caused by rendering assistance to persons/ship(s) in distress)
(b) TERRITORIAL SEA: up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline
(c) CONTIGUOUS ZONE: up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline
- Coastal state may exercise control necessary to prevent infringement of its
customs/fiscal/immigration/sanitary laws & regulations w/in the territory or
territorial sea (cf. Art. 33, UNCLOS)
(d) EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE (EEZ): up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline
- A sui generis maritime space (Case: Magallona vs. Ermita)
- Coastal state has sovereign rights re: exploring and exploiting, conserving
& managing its natural resources, living or non-living (of [1] the waters
super-adjacent to the seabed, & [2] the seabed & subsoil) & re: other activities
for the economic exploitation & exploration of the zone
Case: Philippines vs. China (i.e. Scarborough Shoal arbitration case) no
recognition of PH sovereignty here; only re: exploration/exploitation rights!
Other terms of note:
-Flag state (Art. 91, UNCLOS) means that a ship has the nationality of the flag of the state it
flies; genuine link between state & ship is required
-Flag of convenience a state w/ w/c a vessel is registered for various reasons (e.g. low/nonexistent taxation, etc.); no genuine link between state & ship
3. GOVERNMENT: agency/instrumentality by w/c the will of the State is formulated,
expressed & realized [vs. administration: those holding reins of govt for the time being]
NOTE: This section covers everything government-related: stuff covered by
Articles VI-VIII, the constitutional commissions, election & administrative law, &
local governments. Hold on to your butts, well be here awhile.
Forms of government
5

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

(a) De jure, de facto


- De jure: w/ rightful title
- De facto: actually exercises power/control, but w/o rightful title
i. Revolutionary gets possession & control of, or usurps, by force/voice of
majority, the rightful legal government & maintains itself vs. will of the latter
ii. Secessionist established as an independent government by inhabitants of
a country who rise in insurrection against the parent state
iii. Govt of paramount force established & maintained by military forces who
invade & occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of war
Effects 1. While sovereignty remains, the exercise thereof is abrogated
:
2. Jus postliminium: political laws are automatically suspended
(XPN: treason [Case: Laurel vs. Misa]) BUT will be in force &
effect again upon reestablishment of the former govt
3. Non-political laws continue (XPN: when changed by belligerent;
when civil laws are so changed in a way not warranted by the
laws of the de jure govt, private citizens who comply w/ such do
not become responsible as wrongdoers for said acts)
(b) Unitary, federal
- Unitary: keeps all power under the control of the central government
(Admin. divisions exercise only powers that central gov't chooses to delegate!)
- Federal: splits power between central authorities & local/regional governments
Nature of government democratic & republican (Art. II, Sec. 1, 1987 CONST.)
(a) DEMOCRATIC of, for, & by the people (sovereignty resides in the people & all
governmental authority emanates from them)
- Parens patriae
Cases: (a) Govt vs. Monte de Piedad
(b) Cabanas (?) vs. Pilapil
(c) Soriano vs. Laguardia
(d) Garcia vs. Drilon
(b) REPUBLICAN 4 aspects:
- Representation & renovation
i. Representation: Sovereignty is given in trust to public representatives
ii. Renovation:
via periodic elections!
- Majority/plurality rule
- Govt of laws, not of men (i.e. rule of law)
- Separation of powers: each of the 3 branches of government are empowered to
carry out functions w/o interference/encroachment from the other branches
Cases: (a) Ampatuan vs. De Lima SC, not to interfere in PI by DOJ
(b) Republic vs. Bayao relocation of a govt center = prerogative of
the executive; SC, not to interfere in legit. exercise of exec. power
(XPN: when implementation is contrary to law, morals, public policy)
(c) Angara vs. Electoral Tribunal SC cannot interfere w/ an
independent body; judicial review, premature till the Tribunal has
terminated proceedings
Corollary concepts
i. Checks & balances: system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit
actions of another branch in keeping w/ the doctrine of separation of powers
Cases: (a) Re: COA Opinion any form of interference w/ the judiciarys
fiscal autonomy by the other branches amounts to improper
6

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

check on a co-equal branch of govt


(b) Belgica vs. Ochoa the PDAF system is violative of the
principle of separation of powers insofar as it has allowed
legislators to wield non-oversight, post-enactment authority in
vital areas of budget execution (i.e. allowing people from
Congress to intrude on an essentially executive function)
ii. Delegation of powers
Re: delegation of legislative powers:
GR:
Potestas delegata non delegari potest!
XPN: [PETAL]
1. People at large (via initiative & referendum)
2. Emergency powers for the Pres. (Art. VI, Sec. 23[2])
- Essentially: power to legislate in times of natl emergency
- Reqs.: (a) War/other natl emergency
(b) Limited period only
(c) Subject to restrictions Congress may provide
(d) Pursuant to a declared national policy
- Revocation: no need for another law, a resolution suffices
3. Tariff, also for the Pres. (Art. VI, Sec. 28[2]; TCC [now CMTA])
4. Administrative agencies (i.e. delegation of quasi-legislative
powers; subordinate legislation; IRR-making power)
Reason: expediency!
5. Local governments (LGUs have no inherent powers)
Cases: (a) BOCEA vs. Teves R.A. 9335 (Attrition Act of 2005)1 =
constitutional; adoption of its IRR = valid delegation of powers
(b) Pichay vs. Deputy Executive Secretary the power of the
President to reorganize is a prerogative under his continuing
delegated legislative authority to reorganize his own office
pursuant to the Administrative Code
(c) Banda vs. Ermita the power to reorganize executive offices
has been consistently supported by specific provisions in
general appropriations laws
How lawmaking power is delegated: suppletory rule-making (filling in
details to ensure enforcement of the law) & contingent rule-making
(ascertaining the facts to bring the law into operation)
Tests of valid delegation: completeness + sufficient standard
(a) Completeness test the law must be so complete that there will be
nothing left for the delegate to do but to enforce it
(b) Sufficient standard test even if the law does not spell out the
limitations of the delegates authority in detail, delegation is still valid so
long as the boundaries of the delegates authorities are mapped out via
defined legislative policy & circumstances upon w/c it is carried out
Branches of govt: (a) Legislative (Art. VI, 1987 CONST.)
(b) Executive (Art. VII, ibid.)
(c) Judiciary (Art. VIII, id.)
Legislative (Art. VI, CONST.) GR:
Legislative power is vested in Congress
1 Legislation enacted to optimize the revenue-generating capabilities & collection of the BIR &
BOC by putting up a system of rewards & sanctions for officials & EEs
7

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

XPN: Delegated legislative power to:


1. The people (via initiative & referendum)
2. The President (re: emergency powers)
3. Local legislative bodies
Composition; qualifications of members; term of office
Composition: 24 Senators, elected at large
Qualifications:
- Natural-born citizen
- 35 y/o on the day of the election
Senators
- Able to read & write
(Secs. 2-4)
- Registered voter
- PH resident for 2 yrs. immediately preceding the day of the election
Term: 6 yrs. (starting @ noon on 6/30 next following the election)
Term limit: 2 terms*
Compositions: 250 members max. (XPN: when otherwise provided by law)
As of the 17th Congress: 292 reps. (234 district reps. + 58 party-list reps.)
Qualifications:
- Natural-born citizen
- 25 y/o on the day of the election
Reps.
- Able to read & write
(Secs. 5-8)
- Registered voter in the district in w/c he/she shall be elected
- Resident of [] for 1 yr. immediately preceding the day of the election
For party-list reps.: only the first 3 reqs. are needed!
Term: 3 yrs. (starting @ noon on 6/30 next following the election)
Term limit: 3 terms*
[* senators & reps. may serve for more, provided the terms are not consecutive]
Party-list system 4 parameters:
(a) 20% allocation (Art. VI, Sec. 5) 20% of HoR membership = for party-list reps.!
(b) 2% threshold (R.A. 7941) 2% of votes cast in favor of PL = 1 seat each
(c) 3-seat limit (Case: BANAT vs. COMELEC)
Total no. of votes of each PL
No. of remaining available seats*
Total no. of votes for all PLs
[*list down PLs (re: votes garnered; descending) & assign remaining seats in order]
Q Is the filling of all seats mandatory?
:
A: No, but every effort shall be done to render the seats filled.
(d) Proportional representation
Cases: (a) Abundo vs. COMELEC
(b) Atong Paglaum vs. COMELEC
(c) COCOFED vs. COMELEC
(d) Bantay Republic vs. COMELEC
(e) Lozada vs. COMELEC
(f) Abayon (?) vs. HRET
(g) Lico vs. COMELEC
(h) Amares (?) vs. HRET
(i) Lokim (?) vs. COMELEC
(j) Ang Ladlad vs. COMELEC while the accreditation of a party-list is a
prerogative of the COMELEC, the SC, when called upon in proper cases,
may scrutinize the basis of why a party-list was not accredited
8

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

(k) PGBI vs. COMELEC the COMELEC has the power to delist a party-list
per 2 grounds under Sec. 6(8) of R.A. 7941, viz.:
- Failure to participate in the last 2 preceding elections, or
- Failure to comply w/ the 2% req't in the last 2 preceding elections
(l) LPGMA case
Salaries, privileges & disqualifications/inhibitions
(a) Salary determined by law; salary increases shall take effect after the expiration of
the full term of all the members of the Senate & the HoR approving such increase!
(b) Privileges (Art. VI, Sec. 11)
- Freedom from arrest (cf. Art. 145, RPC) penalty must be 6 yrs. to apply
Available only when Congress is in session (exclude recess!)
- Speech & debate when made in Congress or in any committee thereof
Case: Pobre vs. Defensor-Santiago Sen. Santiago was not subjected to any
disciplinary action by the SC for calling it a court of idiots as she delivered said
utterance, among others, in the Senates session hall
(c) Disqualifications/inhibitions
- Incompatible & forbidden offices (Art. VI, Sec. 13)
INCOMPATIBLE
FORBIDDEN
Any office in govt created, or the
Any other* position in govt, GOCCs
emoluments thereof increased, during
a legislators term
May not be held by the legislator during his/her tenure in Congress
If the legislator insists to hold such an Even if the legislator is willing to forfeit,
office/employment, he/she must forfeit the prohibition is absolute during
his/her position in Congress
the term for w/c he/she was elected
[* excludes: - membership in the electoral tribunals
]
- 2nd office = extension of legis. position/in aid of legis. duties
- Other prohibitions (Art. VI, Sec. 14)
> Appearing before all courts of justice, Electoral Tribunals, all admin. bodies
> Financial interest in any contract w/ govt
- Duty to disclose (Art. XI, Sec. 17, Art. VI, Secs. 12 & 20)
> SALNs, to be disclosed to the public
> Disclosure of financial & business interests upon assumption of office
> Records & books of account = open to the public, auditable
NOTE: duty does not include divestment!
Powers/duties of Congress
[A] LAWMAKING POWER
Requirements as to bills:
1. As to titles of bills (Art. VI, Sec. 26[1]) single-subject rule
Purpose: to prevent riders (i.e. provisions in the law totally
unrelated/unknown to the main subject matter thereof)
The SC has adopted a liberal interpretation of this rule.
Legislative
Q When is a joint resolution considered a law?
:
A: When approved by the President, same as a bill. Per the
Internal Rules of both the Senate & the HoR (Sec. 58 of the
latter), a joint resolution goes through the same process
bills undergo, up to presentation to the President for

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

approval there is no real difference between the two.


(separate opinion of CJ Corona, Galicto vs. Aquino)
2. Reqs. re: certain laws [APRIL] the ff. are to be initiated by HoR:
(a) Appropriation
(b) Private bills
(c) Revenue
(d) Increasing the public debt
(e) Of local application
[The Senate may introduce amendments!]
Grant of franchise: Congress has the sole prerogative to grant
franchises re: specific matters (e.g. power, broadcast, telecom)
Procedure for the passage of bills (Art. VI, Sec. 26[b])
1. Introduction of bill
2. 1st reading (of bill no. & title only)
3. Referral by the Senate Pres./ Speaker to the proper committee
4. Committee report
5. Bill is calendared for 2nd reading
6. 2nd reading (bill is read in full, debated upon, amended if desired)
7. Voting (re: approval for 3rd reading)
8. Printing in its final form, distribution (3 days before 3rd reading)
9. 3rd reading; voting (no further debate)
10. Sending bill to other chamber; repeat steps 2-9
If there are differences in the HoR & Senate versions so approved:
BCC drafts a compromise measure subject to ratification of both
Houses if nays > yeas, the compromise bill will be subject to
another BCC (Case: Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance)
11. Enrolled bill doctrine: the bill is enrolled when
(a) Printed as finally approved by Congress
(b) Authenticated w/ the signatures of the Senate Pres., the
Speaker, & the Secretaries of their respective Houses
(c) Approved by the President
Effectivity of laws (Art. 2, CC)
Limitations on exercise of legislative powers:
1. Substantive limitations
(a) Art. III
(b) Appropriations (Art. VI, Secs. 25, 29)
- Should originate from HoR (see above)
- General appropriations Congress may not increase the
Presidents budgetary recommendations (but it may reduce
as there is no prohibition [XPN: re: appropriations to the
judiciary fiscal autonomy!]); no provision/enactment in
the GAA shall be embraced in it unless it relates
specifically to some particular appropriation therein (to
prevent appropriations sub rosa); no cross-border
transfers, i.e. when one dept transfers some of its funds to
another dept (however, transfers of savings w/in one dept
from one item to another in the GAA may be allowed)
- Discretionary funds (for particular officials) disbursed only
for public purposes; supported by appropriate vouchers; subject
10

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

to guidelines prescribed by law


Special appropriations intended purpose should be
specified; supported by funds (1) actually available as certified
by the National Treasurer, or (2) to be raised by a corresponding
revenue proposal included therein
- No appropriations for sectarian purposes!
XPN:
- Automatic reappropriation per the previous GAA should
Congress fail to pass a GAA for the ensuing year & until a new
GAA is so passed by it
(c) Re: reducing appellate jurisdiction of SC (Art. VI, Sec. 30)
(d) Granting loyalty/nobility (Art. VI, Sec. 31)
(e) Re: taxation
- Evolving a progressive system of taxation (Art. VI, Sec. 28)
- Tax exemption for non-stock, non-profit educational institutions
re: revenues & assets used actually, directly, & exclusively for
educational purposes (Art. XIV, Sec. 4[3])
2. Implied substantive limitations
(a) Prohibition vs. delegation of legis. powers (see previous
pages)
(b) Prohibition against passage of irrepealable laws
3. Procedural limitations (Art. VI, Sec. 32)
[B] LEGISLATIVE VETO OR APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OR
SUSPENSION OF PRIVILEGE OF HABEAS CORPUS OR
DECLARATION OF MARTIAL LAW (Art. VII, Sec. 18)
[C] APPROVAL OF PRESIDENTIAL AMNESTIES (Art. VII, Sec. 19)
[D] CONCURRENCE IN TREATIES (Art. VII, Sec. 21)
[E] WAR POWERS (Art. VI, Sec. 23)
[F] POWER RE: NATURAL RESOURCES (Art. XII, SEC. 2)
[G] AMENDMENT OF CONST. (Art. XVII, Section 12)
1. Question hour (Art. VI, Sec. 22) oversight function, legis. scrutiny
2. Legislative investigation (Art. VI, Sec.21) w/ 3 const. limitations:
(a) In aid of legislation
(b) Per duly published rules of procedure
(c) Rights (due process, etc.) are to be respected
Other limitations:
(a) Gag order issued by the President under the commander-inchief powers (Case: Gudani & Balutan vs. Senga)
(b) Sub judice
(c) Right against self-incrimination
(d) Executive privilege prerogative exclusive to the President
to withhold info. from other branches of govt & the public (XPN:
presumptive privilege extended to subordinates by virtue of
categorical declaration by the Pres. [Case: Senate vs. Ermita])
Classes of executive privilege:
- Informers privilege
- Personal communication (re: decision-making of Pres.)
- Deliberate process (re: decision-making of Cabinet)
- Diplomatic negotiations (i.e. traditional exec. privilege)
-

Nonlegislative

11

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Cases:
(a) Neri vs. Senate executive branch may invoke executive
privilege in matters covered by a legislative hearing & may
even decline attendance or responding to queries if the
same is not carried out in aid of legislation
(b) US vs. Nixon-Fitzgerald executive privilege can never be
invoked by the President as a means to shield another from
liability for criminal wrongdoing
(c) Dela Paz vs. Senate
(d) Bengzon vs. HoR
3. Board of canvassers for Pres./VP votes (Art. VII, Sec. 4, par.4)
Case: Lopez vs. Senate, G.R. No. 163556, June 8, 2004. The
Court sustained the power of Congress to convene in joint session
to canvass the votes in a presidential election.
4. Impeachment (cf. Art. XI) Congress holds sole power to impeach
1. President
2. Vice-President
Impeachable
3. SC Justices
officers
4. Members of the con. comms.
5. Ombudsman
1. Treason
2. Bribery
Grounds
3. Other high crimes (as re: treason, bribery)
4. Graft & corruption
5. Betrayal of public trust
Who can file:
- Any member of HoR
- Any citizen w/ an endorsement of (1)
Procedure
Fast-track procedure:
Longer procedure:
Consequence(s
)
Gutierrez v. House of Representatives, G. R. No. Feb. 15, 2011.
Congress may look into separate complaints against an impeachable
officer and consider the inclusion of matters raised therein in the
adoption of the Articles of Impeachment.
The Court further said that: Impeachment is the most difficult and
cumbersome mode of removing a public officer from office. It is,
by nature, a sui generis politico-legal process that signals the need for
a judicious and careful handling as shown by the process required to
initiate the proceeding; the one-year limitation or bar for its initiation;
the limited grounds for impeachment; the defined instrumentality given
the power to try impeachment cases; and the number of votes required
for a finding of guilt.
Chief Justice Corona v. Senate of the Philippines et al., G.R.
No.200242, July 17, 2012. The power of judicial review includes the
power of review over justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings.
12

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

5. Powers under (or as?) special constitutional bodies


(a) HRET & SET (Art. VI, Sections 17 and 19)
Reyes v. COMELEC and Tan, G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013. To be
considered a member of Congress, there must be concurrence of the
following requisites: . a valid proclamation; a proper oath; and
assumption to duty. Absent any of the foregoing, the COMELEC retains
jurisdiction over said contests.
Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No. 191618, June 11, 2011. PET, as intended
by the framers of the Constitution, is to be an institution independent,
but not separate, from the judicial department.
(b) Commission on Appointments (Art. VI, Secs. 18-19)
(c) JBC (see also Art. VIII)
Chavez v. JBC: The Congress is entitled only to one representative in
the JBC and not one for each from the House of Representatives and
the Senate.
6. Discipline of members (Art. VI, Sec. 16(3)). The Committee on
Ethics conducts the investigation of a member and will submit in
plenary its recommendation. A member of Congress may be
suspended or expelled by two thirds vote of all its members.
7. Keeping a Journal
Matters to be entered in the Journal
Yeas and nays on third and final reading of a bill (Art. VI, Sec.
26[2])
Veto message of the President (Art. VI, Sec. 27[1])
Yeas and nays on the repassing of a bill vetoed by the
President (Art. VI, Sec. 27[1])
Yeas and nays on any question at the request of 1/5 of members
present (Art. VI, Sec.16(4))
Executive (Art. VII, CONST.) Executive power is vested in the President
Qualifications; election; term; oath (Art. VII, Secs. 2, 4 and 5)
(a) Qualifications:
- Natural-born citizen
- Registered voter
- Able to read & write
- 40 y/o on the day of the elections
- Resident of PH for 10 yrs. immediately preceding the elections
(b) Election: by direct vote of the people
(c) Term: 6 yrs. (starting @ noon on 6/30 next following the election)
- 1 term; no reelection
- No person who has succeeded as President & has served as such for >4 yrs.
shall be qualified for election to the same office @ any time!
(d) Oath
Privileges & salary (Art. VII, Sec. 6)
Prohibitions (Art. VII, Sec. 13)
Compare prohibition against other officials (Art. VI, Sec. 13, Art. IX, A, Sec. 2 and Art. IX,
B, Sec. 7)
Exceptions to rule prohibiting executive officials from holding another office;
Vice President as member of the cabinet (Art. VIII, Sec. 3, par.2)
Secretary of Justice as member of Judicial and Bar Council (Art. VIII, Sec. 8 (1))
13

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Powers & functions


>Executive power, (Art. VII, Sections 1 and 17)
>Control of executive department (Art. VII, Sec. 17)
Ople v. Torres, 293 SCRA 141(1998): In the exercise of power of control, the President may
substitute his own judgment over a decision of his subordinate; he may amend, affirm, alter or
revoke any issuance of his subordinates.
Concept of Qualified Political Agency
Fortich v. Corona, 298 SCRA 678(1998). In striking down, the action of the President, the
Court invoking a jurisprudence held: Since the decisions of both the Civil Service Commission
and the Office of the President had long become final and executory, the same can no longer
be reviewed by the courts. It is well-established in our jurisprudence that the decisions and
orders of administrative agencies, rendered pursuant to their quasi-judicial authority, have upon
their finality, the force and binding effect of a final judgment within the purview of the doctrine
of res judicata [Brillantes v. Castro, 99 Phil. 497 (1956), Ipekdijna Merchandizing Co., Inc. v.
Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-15430, September 30, 1963, 9 SCRA 72.]

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency


Judge Angeles v. Hon. Gaite et al., G.R. no. 176596, March 23, 2011. The Presidents act of
delegating authority to the Secretary of Justice is well within the doctrine of qualified political
agency.

General supervision of local government and autonomous regions but not CONTROL
(Art. X, Sec. 4 and Sec.16)
Joson v. Executive Secretary, 290 SCRA 279(1998): The Presidents power over local
governments is only supervision and not control. Thus, the primary concern is to ensure that
local government officials comply with the law when implementing the same.
Power of appointment
With consent of Commission on Appointments (please commit to memory):
Heads of departments (Art. VII, Sec. 16)
Ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls (Art. VII, Sec. 16)
Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel and naval captain (Art. VII, Sec.16)
Chairman and members of Constitutional Commissions (Art. IX, B, Sec. 1(2), C, Sec.
1(2), and D, Sec. 1(2))
Members of the Judicial and Bar Council (Art. VIII, Sec.8(2))
Upon recommendation of the Judicial and Bar Council
Members of the Supreme Court and all lower courts,(Art. VIII, Sec. 9)
Ombudsman (Tanodbayan) and Deputies (Art. XI, Sec. 9)
Limitations on appointing power of the President (Art. VII, Sections 13 and 15)
Interim or recess appointments, (Art.VI, Sec. 19 and Art. VII, Sec. 16, par. 2)
Limitation on appointing power of Acting President (Art. VII, Sections 14-15)
De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010: This case questioned the power of the
President to appoint the Chief Justice during the prohibitive period. The S.C. held that the
14

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

appointment of the members of the judiciary is not covered by the prohibition on midnight
appointments.
Executive clemencies, (Art. VII, Sec. 19, Art. IX, C, Sec. 5)
Pardon distinguished from probation
People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 (1937): Under the law on probation, the convicted party does not
serve his sentence in jail while in pardon, the convicted party serves his sentence and upon
good grounds, he may be granted pardon.
Pardon distinguished from parole
Tesoro v. Director of Prisons, 68 Phil. 154 (1939): Parole is granted to a convicted person
upon showing of good behavior but the party is required to report regularly to the Parole Board
to ensure that fulfills the conditions of his parole.
Pardon distinguished from amnesty
Tolentino v. Catoy, 82 Phil. 300 (1948): Pardon is left to the personal discretion of the
President while amnesty requires the imprimatur of Congress. Pardon is normally extended to
an individual while amnesty is extended to group of individuals who have committed crimes
against the state.
Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 82 Phil. 642 (1949): The right to the benefits of amnesty, once
established by the evidence presented either by the complainant or prosecution, or by the
defense, cannot be waived, because it is of public interest that a person who is regarded by the
Amnesty Proclamation which has the force of a law, not only as innocent, for he stands in the
eyes of the law as if he had never committed any punishable offense because of the amnesty,
Effect of Pardon
Cristobal v. Labrador, 71 Phil. 34 (1940): If it is absolute pardon, one is restored to his full civil
and political rights.
Pelobello v. Palatino, 72 Phil. 441 (1941): In the pardon is conditional, the party cannot avail of
the privilege of habeas corpus as he will be incarcerated at once if he violates the condition of
his pardon.
Revocation of Pardon
In Re: Wilfredo S. Torres, 2 SCRA 109: Since pardon is a an act of grace, the same may be
revoked if the party shows that he does not deserve the same because he has not reformed
himself.
Powers as Commander-in-Chief (Art. VII, Sec.18, Art. III, Sec. 15, Art. VIII, Sec. 1, par.2)
Emergency powers (Art. VI, Sec. 23(2))
Ampatuan et al. v. Hon. Puno, et al., G.R. No. 190259, June 7, 2011. The President did not
proclaim a national emergency, only a state of emergency. The calling out of the armed forces
to prevent or suppress lawless violence in such places is a power that the Constitution directly
vests in the President, without need of congressional authority to exercise the same.
Contracting and guaranteeing foreign loans (Art. VII, Sec. 20, Art. XII, Sec. 21, R. A. No.
4860)
Power over foreign affairs
Treaty making power (Art. VII, Sec. 21)
Treaty distinguished from executive agreements
Arthur Lim et al v. Executive Secretary GR No. 131445, April 11, 2002: A party who does not
any legal standing cannot question the constitutionality of the Visiting Forces Agreement.
Please note that the Court has, in a prior case, made a distinction between an Executive
Agreement and a Treaty. A treaty requires the ratification of the Senate while an
Executive Agreement does not. The VFA is considered supplemental to the Mutual
Defense Treaty executed by the Philippine government and the U.S. government and

15

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

ratified by both the U.S. Senate and the Philippine Senate prior to the adoption of the
1987 Constitution.
Deportation of undesirable aliens
Harvey et al v. Defensor-Santiago, 162 SCRA 1988: Under the theory of delegation of
powers, the Commissioner of Immigration, after due hearing, may exclude an alien and the
aliens liberty may be restrained by virtue of a Mission Order signed by the Commissioner.
The Board of Commissioners v. Jung Keun Park, G.R. No. 159835: In deportation
proceedings, there is no violation of due process when the alien is excluded where the charge
is overstaying or expiration of his passport, including the cancellation of passport. Full blown
hearing is not required.
Power over legislation
Address Congress (Art. VII, Sec.23)
Preparation and submission of the budget (Art. VII)
Veto power (Art. VII, Sec. 27)
Emergency power (Art. VI, Sec. 23 (2))
Fixing of tariff rates (Art. VI, Sec.28 (2))
Presidents Immunity from suit
Rationale for the rule
B. The Vice President
1. Qualifications, election, term and oath (Art. VII, Sections 3, 4, and 5)
2. Privileges and salary (Art. VII, Sec. 6)
3. Prohibitions (Art. VII, Sec 13, Sec. 3, par. 2)
C. Succession (Art. VII, Sec.9)
1. In case of vacancy at the beginning of term (Art. VII, Sec. 7 and Sec. 10)
2. In case of vacancy during term (Art. VII, Sec. 8 and Sec. 10)
3. In case of temporary disability (Art. VII, Sections 11-12)
D. Removal (Art. XI, Sections 2-3)
Read provisions on the process of impeachment
Judiciary (Art. VIII, CONST.) Judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court & in
such other courts as may be created by law
it is only the Supreme Court that prescribes the Rules of Procedure and matters
related to admission and practice of law and the discipline of the members of the
bench and the bar.
NOTE: Topics/matters more at home under Legal Ethics are omitted. Its 11PM,
barely 4 days left before the Bar, & I want to kill myself already.
2. Appointment and qualifications (Art. VIII, Sec. 7, Sec.8 (5), Sec.9)
QUALITIES: proven Competence, Independence, Probity and Integrity (CIPI)
3. Salary, (Art. VIII, Sec. 10, Art. XVIII, Sec. 17)
4. Tenure (Art VIII, Sec. 11, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, par. 2): All public officers retire at 65 years old
but members of the judiciary retire at 70 years old.
5. Removal (Art. XI, Sec. 2): by impeachment
6. Jurisdiction (Art. VIII, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, par. 2, Sec. 5, Art. VI, Sec. 30, Art. VII, Sec. 18)
7. Report on the judiciary (Art. VIII, Sec. 16)
8. Manner of sitting and votes required (Art. VIII, Sec. 4)
Rule: Divisions of the Supreme Court do not diminish its authority
9. Requirements as to decision (Art. VIII, Sections 13-14)
10. Periods for deciding cases (Art. VIII, Sec. 15, Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. 3, Art. XVIII,
Sections 12-14)
16

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Judicial review
The exercise of power of judicial review is restricted by the principle of separation of
powers in the sense that the court may not inquire into the wisdom of the
Congress in enacting a law.
The court may not scrutinize the recognition of a state made by the President because
this is the sole prerogative of the President.
The courts cannot be made to perform any duty which is not judicial in nature.
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court : Section 5, Article VIII
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and
consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of
Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may require.
Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of the
judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil Service
Law.
Consolidated Petitions (Belgica and others) supra
De los Santos v. COA, G.R. No.198457, August 13, 2013: S.C. may overturn the appreciation
of facts of the trial court when the such findings are patently illegal or when there was no
jurisdiction for the court to resolve the issues.
C. Conditions for the Exercise of Judicial Review

17

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Marbury v. Madison (1803): What is the power of judicial review: The Court reasoned thatif
the courts are to regard the Constitution; and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of
the legislature; the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they
both apply. In the end, the Court concluded, It is emphatically the province and duty of the
judicial department to say what the law is.
Baker v. Carr: What is the political question doctrine: "Prominent on the surface of any case
held
to
involve
a
political
question
is
found:
(1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate
political
department;
(2) or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;
(3) or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non
judicial
discretion;
(4) or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of
the
respect
due
coordinate
branches
of
government;
(5) or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;
(6) or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various
departments on one question.
D. Functions of Judicial Review: Checking, Legitimating and Symbolic
Functions of Judicial Review: Checking looks into possible abuses of each branch of
government; review of decisions of lower courts; Legitimizing looks into constitutionality of
laws and its application; and Symbolic looks into issues although they have become moot
and academic. REMEMBER THE EXPANDED POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE S.C.
Under normal circumstances, S.C. will not disturb the findings of facts of administrative
tribunals and the trial courts. However, S.C. may review findings of facts the lower courts
under recognized exceptions: when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures; when inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; where there is abuse of discretion; when judgment is based on misapprehension of
facts, when the findings of facts are conflicting; when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to those of the trial court;
when findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are
based; when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs
are not disputed by the respondents; and when the findings of fact of the C.A. are premised on
supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.
General Rule: All courts can exercise judicial review
Effect of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
Under Civil Code, Art. 7, Statute is void when declared unconstitutional
Statute is not always void but may produce legal effects
Operative Fact Doctrine
Hacienda Luisita v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, November 22,
2011. The operative fact doctrine is not confined to statutes and rules and regulations issued by
the executive branch that are accorded the same status as that of a statute or those which are
quasi-legislative in nature.
E. The Supreme Court as Presidential Electoral Tribunal, (Art. VII, Sec. 4, par. 4)
Macalintal v. PET, G.R. No.191618, November 23, 2010. PET is an institution independent but
not separate from the judicial department.
18

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Legarda v. De Castro 542 SCRA, 125: The justices of the Supreme Court are triers of facts
when they participate in the conduct of an election contest involving candidates for president
and vice president. This allows the party in the election contest to raise any other issue within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court because in this case, the Court now exercises
its power of judicial review.
G. Administrative powers (more on judicial ethics)
1. Supervision of lower courts (Art. VIII, Sec.6)
2. Discipline of Judges (Art. VIII, Sec. 11)
3. Appointment of officials and employees of entire judiciary (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(6))
H. Lower courts (more on judicial ethics)
1. Qualifications and appointment (Art. VIII, Sec. 7(1)(2), Sec. 8(5), Sec.9)
2. Salary (Art. VIII, Sec. 10)
3. Tenure (Art. VIII, Sec. 11, Sec. 1, Sec. 2, par. 2)
4. Removal (Art. VIII, Sec. 11)
5. Jurisdiction (Art. VIII, Sec. 1)
6. Requirements as to preparation of decisions (Art. VIII, Sec.14)
7. Period for deciding (Art. VIII, Sec. 15 and Art. XVIII, Sections 12-14)
8. No non-judicial work for judges (Art. VIII, Sec. 12)
I. The Judicial and Bar Council (Art. VIII, Sec. 8); Memorize composition but it will be
more an appropriate topic in judicial ethics.
J. Disqualifications, inhibition and remittal of disqualification of judges (may be part of
judicial ethics)
1. Prohibition on practice of profession: No member of the judiciary may practice their
profession during their incumbency.
2. Prescriptive Duty to resolve pending matters:
All matters pending with the Supreme Court must be resolved with 24 months;
Twelve (12) months for all collegiate appellate courts; and
Three (3) months for all other lower courts. (Section 15(1), 1987 Constitution)
3. Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges: may be voluntary or involuntary: There are two rules
governing the qualification and voluntary inhibition of judges: Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of
Court; and Rule 3. 12 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Section
1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides: Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial
officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir,
legatee, creditor or otherwise , or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules
of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or
in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of
review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon
the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in case, for
just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. (example: judge is wedding sponsor to
one of the litigants, litigant is a kasambay of the judge)
Fundamental powers of govt police power + eminent domain + taxation
(a) POLICE POWER
History of Police Power, Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Puno in
Lim v. Pacquing, 240 SCRA 649: Former Chief Justice Puno in his Dissenting Opinion in this
1995 case said that the exercise of police power is not without limit. He said that while it is the
19

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

prerogative of the State to promote the general welfare of the people thru the use of
police power; on the opposite end is the right of an entity to have its property protected against
unreasonable impairment by the State. Courts accord the State wide latitude in the exercise of
its police power to bring about the greatest good of the greatest number. But when its purpose
is putrefied by private interest, the use of police power becomes a farce and must be struck
down just as every arbitrary exercise of government power should be stamped out.
SURNECO v. Energy Regulatory Commission, G.R. No. 183626, October 4, 2010. In the
exercise of police power, the state can regulate the rates imposed by a public utility to protect
public interest.
CREBA v. DAR Secretary, G.R. No. 183409, June 18, 2010. The issuance of Memorandum
No.88, which addresses the unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands of real estate
development because of the worsening rice shortage in the country, was made pursuant to the
general welfare of the public.
When exercise of police power may be questioned
MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Assn. 328 SCRA 836: Where is there is no explicit grant of power, a
government agency cannot exercise police power. The Court said: Clearly, the MMDA is
not a political unit of government. The power delegated to the MMDA is that given to the
Metro Manila Council to promulgate administrative rules and regulations in the implementation
of the MMDAs functions. There is no grant of authority to enact ordinances and
regulations for the general welfare of the inhabitants of the metropolis.
(b) EMINENT DOMAIN
Moday v. C. A. 268 SCRA 586: The Court reiterated the limitations on the power of eminent
domain are that the use must be public, compensation must be made and due process of
law must be observed. The Supreme Court, taking cognizance of such issues as the
adequacy of compensation, necessity of the taking and the public use character or the purpose
of the taking, has ruled that the necessity of exercising eminent domain must be genuine and
of a public character. Government may not capriciously choose what private property
should be taken.
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Yatco Agricultural Enterprises, G.R. No. 172551, January
15, 2014. The determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial function. In
the exercise of the Courts essentially judicial function of determining just compensation, the
RTC-SACs are not granted unlimited discretion and must consider and apply the enumerated
factors in R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR formula (in AO 5-98) that reflect these factors. Courts
may, in the exercise of their discretion, relax the formulas application to fit the factual situations
before them. They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any deviation from the factors
and formula that the law and the rules have provided.
The time of taking refers to that time when the State deprived the landowner of the use
and benefit of his property, as when the State acquires title to the property or as of the
filing of the complaint, per Section 4, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court.
NOTE that: Expropriation is one of the harshest proceedings which the state has against a
private party because it deprives the party of perpetual use of his property; requisites, how just
compensation is determined; relate to the Bill of Rights.

20

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Action on Commissioners Report: Republic v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 191448, November
16, 2011
Compromise Agreement tin Eminent Domain: City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation, et al.,
G.R. No. 187604, June 25, 2012
Public Purpose
Housing for the poor: Ortega v. City of Cebu, 602 SCRA 601 (2009)
Taking for a cultural/historical purpose: Manosca v C.A., G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996
When taking is not justified: Masikip v. Pasig City, 497 SCRA 391(2006)
Just Compensation
Principal criterion to determine just compensation: Tinio et al. v. NAPOCOR, G.R. 160923,
January 24, 2011
Compensation based on R.A. 6657: LBP v. Ferrer et al., G.R. No. 172230, February 2, 2011
Recognition of Fair Market Value: EPZA v. Estate of Salud Jimenez, et al., G.R. No. 188995,
August 24, 2011
Interest rate on just compensation: Apo Fruits Corp. et al. v LBP, G.R. No. 164, October 12,
2010
Police power and eminent domain, distinguished:
Manila Memorail Park et al. v. DSWD Secretary et al., G.R. no. 175356, December 3, 2013.
In the exercise of police power, a property right is impaired by regulation or the use of the
property is merely prohibited, regulated or restricted to promote public welfare. In eminent
domain, property interests are appropriated and applied to some public purpose which
necessitates just compensation.

(c) TAXATION
rule on taxation: must be uniform and equitable; Congress to enact a progressive
system of taxation
Smart Communications v. Municipality of Malvar, Batangas, G.R. No. 204429, February
2014. If the generation of revenue was the primary purpose and regulation was merely
incidental, the imposition is a tax; but if the regulation is the primary purpose, that fact that
incidentally revenue is also obtained does not make the ordinance a tax measure.
Com. of Internal Revenue v. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 309 SCRA 87. In negotiating tax
treaties, the underlying rationale for reducing the tax rate is that the Philippines will give up a
part of the tax in the expectation that the tax given up for this particular investment is not taxed
by the other country.
In order to eliminate double taxation, a tax treaty resorts to several methods. First, it
sets out the respective rights to tax of the state of source or situs and of the state of
residence with regard to certain classes of income or capital.
The second method for the elimination of double taxation applies whenever the state of source
is given a full or limited right to tax together with the state of residence. In this case, the treaties
make it incumbent upon the state of residence to allow relief in order to avoid double taxation.

Administrative & election law

21

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Preliminaries
1. Doctrine of primary jurisdiction court will yield to an administrative agency which prior
cognizance of the case; when resort to court, there must be respect for hierarchy of courts;
recognition of jurisdiction of co-equal courts
2. Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies court will defer to the administrative
agency before taking cognizance of the case unless the case falls within the exceptions.
Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014.
The omission of the filing of a motion for reconsideration poses no obstacle for the Courts
review of its ruling on the whole case since a serious constitutional question has been raised
and is one of the underlying bases for the validity or invalidity of the presidential action. If the
President does not have any constitutional authority to discipline a Deputy Ombudsman and/or
a Special Prosecutor in the first place, then any ruling on the legal correctness of the OPs
decision on the merits will be an empty one. In other words, since the validity of the OPs
decision on the merits of the dismissal is inextricably anchored on the final and correct ruling
on the constitutional issue, the whole case including the constitutional issue remains alive
for the Courts consideration on motion for reconsideration
3. Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction the law defining jurisdiction must be strictly
followed.
4. Res judicata elements of res judicata; doctrine is viewed from two concepts bar by
former judgment and conclusiveness of judgment; requisites former judgment is final, it is
rendered by a competent court; judgment was based on the merits and there is identity of
subject matter, causes of action and parties; exceptions to the observation of the rule on res
judicata; distinction between res judicata in civil actions and criminal cases
5. Declaratory reliefs may be filed where a party wishes to be clarified whether a law or any
instrument would affect his right but must be filed before the law or instrument takes effect.6.
Writ of Habeas Corpus when available, in cases of deportation proceedings, aliens normally
file a petition for writ of habeas data; custody cases, the writ is also available; review the
constitutional guarantees related to criminal law and the emergency powers of the President.
The constitutional commissions
Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014. The
Supreme Court held that the independence enjoyed by the Office of the Ombudsman and by
the Constitutional Commissions shares certain characteristics they do not owe their
existence to any act of Congress, but are created by the Constitution itself. They also
enjoy fiscal autonomy. In general terms, the framers of the Constitution intended that these
independent bodies be insulated from political pressure to the extent that the absence of
independence would result in the impairment of their core functions.
READ the common qualifications, disqualifications and tenure of office
1. Civil Service Commission with Law on Public Officers
1. Composition and qualification of Commissions (Art. IX, B, Sec. 1(1), Art.
VII, Sec. 13, par. 2)
2. Appointment and term of office of Commission (Art. IX, B, Sec. 1(2))
3. Appointment of personnel of CSC (Art. IX, A, Sec. 4)
4. Salary (Art.IX, A, Sec. 3 and Art. XVIII, Sec. 17)
5. Disqualification (Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
6. Removal by Impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 2)
7. Functions of the CSC (Art. IX, B, Sec.3, Art. IX, A, Sections 7 and 8)
8. Scope of the civil service (Art. IX, B, Sec. 2(1))
22

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

9. Terms and conditions of employment in the civil service


(1) Oath of allegiance to the Constitution (Art. IX, B, sec. 4 and Art. XI,
Sec. 18)
(2) Merit system
(a) Appointment of lameducks(Art. IX, B, Sec. 6)
(b) Appointment or designed of elective and appointive officials (Art.
IX, B, Sec. 7. Art. VII, Sec. 13 and Art. VI, Sec. 13)
(3) Standardization of pay and ban on double compensation(Art. IX, B,
Sec. 5, Sec. 8)
(4) Ban on partisan political activities (Art. IX, B, Sec.2(4))
(5) Removal or suspension only for cause (Art. IX, B, Sec. (3))
(6) Summary removal
(7) Right of self-organization (Art, III, Sec. 8, Art. IX, Sec.2(5)
10. Review of decision of the CSC (Art. IX, A, Sec. 7)
11. Fiscal independence (Art. IX, A, Sec. 5)
2. Types of public officers: appointive (except for confidential appointees, must comply with CSC
standard qualifications); and elective (derives position by direct mandate of the people.
3. QUALITIES (RILE) must serve with utmost RESPONSIBILITY, INTEGRITY, LOYALTY and
EFFICIENCY; act with patriotism and justice and lead modest life.
General Rule: A public servant may only be removed for cause. Every appointment is based on
merit and fitness.
Other pertinent rules governing public officers:
4. Midnight Appointments: A President or Acting President is prohibited from making
appointments two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to
the end of his term. (Art. VII, Sec. 15, Constitution)
Exception: Temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies
therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
5. Three fold liability of a public officer: civil liability, criminal liability and administrative
liability
6. Preventive suspension is not a penalty but is mean to safeguard the integrity of the
administrative investigation. There is no compensation given during this period of
suspension.
7. Effects on resolution of cases on public officers:
When a public officer is suspended pending appeal, he is entitled to
compensation for the period of suspension if he is found innocent.
If a public officer is illegally removed, he may be reinstated. If there was bad faith
or malice, the superior who caused such illegal removal will be held personally
accountable for the back salaries of subject employee.
The award of backwages is limited to a maximum period of five years. (David v.
Gania, 2003)
8. Official immunity is not absolute; serves to protect the public officer in the discharge
of his responsibilities; serves as a protective aegis for public officials from tort liability
for damages on account of his responsibilities.
9. De jure and de facto officers, distinguished: elements of in determining is one is a de
facto officer:
1. There must be a de jure office
2. Color of right or general acquiescence by the public
3. Actual physical possession of the office in good faith

23

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

10. Quo Warranto normally brought in cases involving public officers, both elective and
appointive, as to which party has a right or title to the office.
11. Sandiganbayan (Art. XI, Sec. 4)
People v. Luis Morales, G.R. No. 166355, May 30, 2011. A private corporation is beyond the
Sandiganbayans jurisdiction.
12. Ombudsman
1. Composition (Art. XI, Sec. 5)
2. Qualification (Art. XI, Sec. 8)
3. Appointment and term (Art. XI, Sections 8 and 11)
4. Rank and Salary(Art. XI, Sec. 10)
5. Disqualifications(Art.XI, Sec. 8, Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
6. Jurisdiction(Art. XI, Sec. 12)
Office of the Ombudsman v. CSC 451 SCRA 570
7. Powers and functions(Art. XI, Sec. 13)
8. Fiscal autonomy (Art. XI, Sec. 14)
9. Appointment of personnel (Art. XI, Sec. 6)
Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014.
The Court said that the Ombudsman is vested with broad investigative and disciplinary powers.
These powers include the scrutiny of all acts of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of
all public officials, including Members of the Cabinet and key Executive officers, during their
tenure. Under Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the Office of the Ombudsman is
envisioned to be the protector of the people against the inept, abusive, and corrupt in the
government, to function essentially as a complaints and action bureau. This constitutional
vision of a Philippine Ombudsman practically intends to make the Ombudsman an authority to
directly check and guard against the ills, abuses, and excesses of the bureaucracy. As the
Ombudsman is expected to be an activist watchman, the Court has upheld its actions,
although not squarely falling under the broad powers granted it by the Constitution and by R.A.
No. 6770, if these actions are reasonably in line with its official function and consistent with the
law and the Constitution.
Office of the Special Prosecutor (Art. XI, Sec. 7)
Emilio A. Gonzales III v. Office of the President, etc., et al./Wendell Bareras-Sulit v. Atty.
Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 196231/G.R. No. 196232, January 28, 2014.In
recognition of the importance of the office of the Special Prosecutor as a necessary adjunct of
the Ombudsman, aside from his or her deputies, Congress made the Office of the Special
Prosecutor as an organic component of the Office of the Ombudsman. It also granted the
Ombudsman control and supervision over that office. This power of control and supervision
includes vesting the Office of the Ombudsman with the power to assign duties to the Special
Prosecutor as he or she may deem fit. Even if the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not
expressly made part of the composition of the Office of the Ombudsman, the role it performs as
an organic component of that Office militates against a differential treatment between the
Ombudsmans Deputies, on one hand, and the Special Prosecutor himself, on the other. What
is true for the Ombudsman must be equally true, not only for her Deputies but, also for other
lesser officials of that Office who act directly as agents of the Ombudsman herself in the
performance of her duties.
24

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

2. Commission on Elections and Pertinent Election Laws


1. Composition and qualification of Commissioners (Art. IX,C, Sec.1 (1), Art. VII, Sec.
13, par. 2)
2. Appointment and term of office of Commissioners (Art. IX, C, Sec. 1(2))
3. Appointment of personnel (Art. IX, A, Sec. 4)
4. Salary (Art. IX, A, Sec. 3, Art. XVIII, Sec. 17)
5. Disqualifications (Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
6. Removal by Impeachment (Art. XI, Sec. 2)
7. Powers and Functions of the COMELEC (Art. IX, C, Sec.2)
Enforce election laws(Art. IX, C, Sec.2(1), Sec. 10)
Decide administrative question pertaining to elections, except the right to
Vote (Art. IX, sec. 2(3))
File Petition for inclusion or exclusion of voters(Art. IX, C, Sec. 2(6))
Prosecute election law violators(Art. IX, C. Sec. 2(6))
Recommend pardon, parole or suspension of sentence of election, except the
right to vote (Art. IX, C, Sec. 5)
Deputize law enforcement agents and recommend their removal (Art. IX, C, Sec.
2(4), Sec. 2(8))
REGISTRATION of political parties, organizations, and coalitions and
ACCREDITATION of citizens arms(Art. XI, C, Sec. 2(5))
Registration under the party-list system (Art.IX, C, Sections 6, 7 and 8
and Art.VI, Sec. 5(2), Art. XVIII, Sec. 7)
BANAT V. COMELEC, 592 SCRA 294: The Constitution provides that Congress shall not have
more than 250 members unless Congress provides otherwise and out of the total number of
incumbent members not more than 20% shall come from the party list. Of the party list
members, each party list shall be entitled to a maximum of three seats.
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, G. R. No, 190852, April 8, 2010: Accreditation is done solely by
COMELEC. The Court said that under the countrys system of laws, every group has the right
to promote its agenda and attempt to persuade society of the validity of its position through
normal democratic means. It is in the public square that deeply held convictions and differing
opinions should be distilled and deliberated upon.The OSG argues that since there has been
neither prior restraint nor subsequent punishment imposed on Ang Ladlad, and its members
have not been deprived of their right to voluntarily associate, then there has been no restriction
on their freedom of expression or association. The Court said that the moral objection
offered by the COMELEC was not a limitation imposed by law. Thus it held: To the extent,
therefore, that the petitioner has been precluded, because of COMELECs action, from publicly
expressing its views as a political party and participating on an equal basis in the political
process with other equally-qualified party-list candidates, we find that there has, indeed, been a
transgression of petitioners fundamental rights.
Note: In a later decision penned by Chief Justice Sereno, the Court qualified who may
accredited as a party list in the sense the same is no longer limited to the marginalized
sector; and a party list which does not meet the 10% vote will lose its accredidation.
Regulation of Public utilities and media of information(Art. IX, C, Sec. 4, Sec. 9)
Decide election contests and cases(Art. IX, C, Sec. 2(2) Sec. 3)
Rule-making(Art. IX, A, Sec. 6)
Other functions(Art. IX, A, Sec. 8)
Act as National Board of Canvassers for Senators
Review of COMELEC decisions,orders, and resolutions(Art. IX, A, Sec.7)
25

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Fiscal autonomy(Art. IX, A, Sec. 5)


Macquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, July 2, 2013: This case overturned the
jurisprudence that a second placer in an election contest is always a second placer. The Court
held that the ballot cannot override the constitutional and statutory requirements for
qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. When the law requires certain qualifications to
be possessed or that certain disqualifications be not possessed by persons desiring to serve as
elective public officials, those qualifications must be met before one even becomes a candidate.
When a person who is not qualified is voted for and eventually garners the highest number of
votes, even the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure the defect in the
qualifications of the candidate.
4. Commission on Audit with public accountability in so far as public funds are
concerned
1. Composition and qualification(Art. IX, D, Sec. 1(1), Art. VII, Sec. 13, par.
2)
2. Appointment and term of Commissioners(Art. IX, D, Sec. 1(2))
3. Appointment of COA personnel(Art. IX, A, Sec. 4)
Salary(Art. IX, A, Sec. 3, Art.XVIII, Sec. 1)
4. Disqualifications(Art. IX, A, Sec. 2)
5. Removal by Impeachment(Art. XI, Sec. 2, Art. IX, A, Sec. 6)
6. Power and functions(Art. IX, D, Sec. 2, Sec. 3, Art. VI, Sec. 20)
7. Rulemaking(Art. IX, A, Sec. 6)
8. Other functions(Art. IX A, Sec. 8)
9. Review of decisions of the COA (Art. IX, A, Sec. 7)
10. Fiscal autonomy, Art. IX, A, sec. 5
DBP v. COA, 373 SCRA 356: A government entity may engage the services of a private
auditing firm if the said government entitys funds consist of loan proceeds from an international
funding agency like the World Bank. Such loan agreement shall be governed by the terms and
conditions agreed upon by the parties and that may include the audit of funds by an external
auditor other the COA. (You may relate this also to the provision on adoption of generally
accepted principles in International Law).
Ramon R. Yap vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 158562, April 23, 2010. COA is the
guardian of public funds. COA is not merely legally permitted, but is also duty-bound to make
its own assessment of the merits of the disallowed disbursement and not simply restrict
itself to reviewing the validity of the ground relied upon by the auditor of the government
agency concerned. To hold otherwise would render COAs vital constitutional power
unduly limited and thereby useless and ineffective.
Please note:
Resolutions/ actions of CSC, COA and COMELEC are reviewed by S.C. en banc because
the Constitution provides for this. Rule 65 is normally applied.
Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus: distinguish one from the other, requisites for issuance
of the writs; certiorari normally invoked where there is no other speedy remedy available
particularly where there is abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent-party and to correct
errors of jurisdiction; prohibition prevents/enjoins the party from acting on a matter presented
the court; and mandamus will be issued only when there is particular law which
commands the party to perform an act and will not to compel the performance of a
discretionary duty (ex. issuance of a passport or visa).
26

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

C. Other Constitutional Bodies


1. Commission on Human Rights
Purely investigative powers and no prosecutor powers
2. Central Monetary Authority
1. Composition and qualifications of members (Art. XII, Sec. 20)
2. Functions (Art. XII, Sections 20-21)
Vivas v. BSP and the PDIC, G.R. No. 191424, August 7, 2013. Unless adequate and
determined efforts are taken by government against distressed and mismanaged banks, public
faith in the banking system is certain to deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy.
3. Economic and Planning Agency (Art. XII, Sections 9-10)
1. Goal(Art. XII, Sec.1)
2. Regulation of economic activities
a. Rationale (Art. XII, Sec. 6, Sec. 12, Sec. 13)
Republic v. MERALCO, 391 SCRA 700(2002)
b. The NEDA and development program (Art. XII, Sections 9-10)
c. Organization and regulation of private corporation (Art. XII, Sec. 16)
d. Operation of public utilities (Art. XII, Sec. 11, Sec. 17)
e. Practice of professions (Art. XII, Sec. 14)
f. State operation of private enterprises (Art. XII, Sections17 and 18)
g. Monopolies, combination, and unfair competition (Art. XII, Sec. 19)
Money, banking and credit (Art. XII, Sec. 20)
Local governments
IX. Autonomy of Local Governments (Art. II, Sec. 25, Art. X (Local Government)
A. Factors to be considered in the creation of local government unit: (PILA)
1. Population to be authenticated by the National Statistics Office (now Philippine Statistics
Authority); population must be actual and certification can only be issued by the Chief
Statistician (Aldaba v. COMELEC, 2010);
2. Income: Average of two-year of the local government unit to be certified by the Department of
Finance. Note that all treasurers of all local government units are appointed by the
Secretary of Finance.
The share of the local government in the IRA is included in the computation of income.
(Alvarez v. Guingona, 1996)
3. Land Area: Area must be contiguous except for provinces comprising of islands. The land
area must be authenticated by the Land Management Bureau of the DENR. (Navarro v. Ermita,
2011, where the Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of Dinagat as a province despite the
fact that it did not meet the prescribed 2,000 square meter area.
B. Rule on creation of local government units and additional congressional districts: a
plebiscite is required in the creation of local government units but not in the creation of
additional congressional districts.
The creation of local government units in provinces, cities, municipalities, and other
political subdivision is a congressional/legislative prerogative while the creation of
barangays shall be done by local ordinances in cities and provinces (for component
cities and municipalities) through the Sangguniang Panglungsod and Sangguniang
Panlalawigan as the case may be.
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC (2011). In upholding the legality of the
conversion of several cities, the Court held that Congress need not apply the revised
requirements in the new law during the pendency of the approval of all the bills creating such
27

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

new local government units since they are compliant prior to the adoption of the new
requirements.
Navarro v. Ermita (2011). When a local government is upgraded to become a province and it is
comprised of several islands and cannot meet the 2,000 square meter contiguous land area,
the same is deemed exempted from complying with the said minimum land area requirement.
Aldaba v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 188078, March 15, 2010. A city that has attained a population
of 250,000 population and thereafter, in the immediately following election, such city shall have
a district representative.
Sen. Aquino and Mayor Robredo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010. The
constitutional provision draws plain and clear distinction between the entitlement of a city to a
district on one hand, and the entitlement of a province to a district on the other. For while a
province is entitled to one district representative, a city must meet the 250,000 population
requirement to be entitled to one district representative.
Please note that the creation of congressional districts does not require a plebiscite but
the creation of political subdivisions must be submitted to the affected constituents for
approval.
C. Jurisdiction of boundary disputes:
1. Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving a municipality and an independent component city.
2. Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two municipalities of the same province.
3. Joint Sangguniang Panlalawigan exercises original jurisdiction over boundary
disputes involving two municipalities of the different provinces.
4. Sangguniang Panglungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two barangays of the same city.
5. Joint Sangguniang Panlungsod exercises original jurisdiction over boundary disputes
involving two barangays of two different cities.
6. The regional trial court exercises APPELLATE jurisdiction over boundary disputes
among local government units.
D. Powers of LGUs
Legaspi v. City of Cebu, G.R. No. 159692, December 10, 2013. The tests to determine if an
ordinance is valid are divided into formal and substantive aspects.
Municipality of Tiwi et al. v. Betito, G.R. no. 171873, July 9, 2010. Under the Local
Government Code, the mayor is required to secure prior authorization from the local legislative
council before entering into a contract in behalf of the local government.
Land Bank v. Cacayuran, G.R. No. 191667, April 17, 2013. The distinction between
ordinances and resolutions is well- perceived. While ordinances and laws possess a general
and permanent character, resolutions are merely temporary in nature as they merely express
sentiments or opinion on a specific matter or event.
The Learning Child et al. v. Ayala Alabang Village Association, et al., G.R. No. 176885, july
5, 2010. Being merely a rectifying issuance and not a rezoning enactment, the questioned
Resolution did not have to comply with the mandatory requirements of notice and hearing.
Greenhills East Association v. E. Ganzon, Inc., G.R. No. 169741, January 20, 2010. The city
or the municipality to which the barangay belongs may issue the required license or building
permit despite the withholding of the barangay clearance provided the local zoning law allows
the activity or structure in the subject location.
The Province of Negros Occidental v. COA, G.R. No. 182574, September 28, 2010. The
grant of additional compensation like hospitalization and health care insurance benefits does
not need the approval of the President to be valid because the President only exercises
28

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

supervision over local government units.


4. SOVEREIGNTY: supreme, uncontrollable power inherent in a state by w/c it is governed
Sovereignty; Dominion and Imperium, distinguished under the Philippine Constitution
Isagani Cruz v. Sec. of DENR, G. R. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000: The state has the right to
govern and the right to own properties and may regulate the exploitation, development and
utilization of its natural resources as it may deem fit in exercise of the general welfare clause.
Frivaldo v. COMELEC, 257 SCRA 727: The right to govern by virtue of a mandate from the
people is not absolute. The Court held that the will of the people as expressed through the
ballot cannot cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, as in this case,
that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this rule requires strict application when the
deficiency is lack of citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the Philippines, he
must owe his total loyalty to this country only, abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to
any other state.
2. Sovereignty in Public International Law
Sovereignty: the supreme power of the state to enforce its will on its members within its
jurisdiction and to have freedom from foreign control.
By the doctrine of incorporation, the Philippines is bound by generally accepted
principles of international law.
One of the fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda (international
obligations must be performed in good faith).
Treaty: a formal international agreement concluded between states governed by
international law embodied in a single instrument or other related instruments. (Vienna
Convention on Laws of Treaties)
Requisites: entered into by independent states with treaty making capacity; executed by
their duly authorized representatives, not attended with duress, mistake or fraud or vice
of consent, covers a lawful subject matter and object; and duly ratified with
constitutional processes.
D. Basis of State Immunity, Art. XVI, Sec. 3. The state cannot be sued without its consent.
Dept. of Agriculture v. NLRC, 227 SCRA: The state cannot be sued without its consent. The
assets of the government cannot be held liable for liabilities of a private person.
Department of Health et al. v.Phil. Pharmawealth, Inc. G.R. No. 182358, February 20, 2013.
The state may not be sued without its consent. Likewise, public officials may not be sued for
acts done in the performance of their official functions or within the scope of their authority.
1. When a suit is against the state and when it is not
Air Transportation Office v. Spouses Ramos, G.R. No. 159402, February 23. 2011. The
doctrine of sate immunity should not be extended to the petitioner as the same is an agency of
government not performing a purely governmental or sovereign function.
2. Consent; Manner by which consent is given
Express consent: by provision of law; when government exercises its proprietary
function;; when government initiates a suit.
Yujuico. Atienza, 472 SCRA 463. The City of Manila cannot be excused from paying the
property owner the balance of just compensation because it was the city which initiated the
expropriation proceedings.

29

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

City of Manila v. Alegar Corporation et al., G.R. No. 187604, June 25, 2012. The execution
of an agreement with a property owner in an expropriation proceeding constitutes a waiver of
the part of the local government to present evidence.
Quarto v. Ombudsman et al., G.R. No. 169042, October 12, 2011. An immunity statute does
not, and cannot, rule out a review by the Supreme Court of the Ombudsmans exercise of
discretion. Such intervention occurs only when a clear and grave abuse of discretion is
palpable.
3. Torts committed by special agents under the Civil Code, Art. 2180 (Consent to be sued
includes actions for tort)
Teotico v. City of Manila: The City of Manila was held liable under the provision of the Civil
Code which mandates it to maintain and ensure the safety of the public in all public places like
roads in its territorial jurisdiction.
Incorporation of government owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs): By law, GOCCs have
the right to sue and be sued.
Implied consent:
When the Government enters into business contracts
When it would be inequitable for the Government to claim immunity
4. Scope of Consent
Chavez v. Sandiganbayan, 193 SCRA 282: A public officer may not be held liable for the
counterclaim by one of the accused when he performs his duties in good faith.
Doctrines in Treaties:
Jus Cogens: preemptory norm of international law
Pacta sund servanda: the principle that agreements are binding and are to be
implemented in good faith
Clausa rebus sic stantibus: implication of a term that obligations of an agreement come
to an end with change of circumstances
Most Favored Nation (MFN): the principle of not discriminating between ones trading
partners.
D. People

BILL OF RIGHTS
VII. The Bill of Rights
PLEASE FOCUS ON UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEARCHES/WARRANTLESS
ARREST/RIGHTS OF UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION and undergoing
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION TOGETHER WITH RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED/ FREEDOM
OF EXPRESSION IN RELATION TO THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
A. Preliminaries
1. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of Rights: protection of guaranteed rights to liberty,
property and other freedoms. (Section 1, Article III, Constitution)
2. Who are protected by the rights: all citizens, natural-born and naturalized citizens; aliens
within the jurisdiction of the Philippines; both natural and juridical persons.
3. Doctrines governing interpretation of laws affecting guaranteed rights:
Void for Vagueness doctrine
Overbreadth doctrine
4. Due Process Clause (Section1, Article III)
Types of due process: Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process
30

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Procedural due process distinguished from substantive due process


Substantive due process deals with rights vested under legal enactments.
>Procedural due process refers to guarantees of fairness in determining any
impairment of a right.
Notice of rules by publication as a prerequisite/ Notice to Party
Procedural Due Process
a. Due process in administrative proceedings; Requisites
Acuzar v. Jarolan and Apresa PLEB, G.R. No. 177878, April 7, 2010: In administrative
proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right
to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondents
legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to
present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones rights; (3) a tribunal vested
with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which
is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained
in the records or made known to the parties affected.
Effect when due process is not observed:
Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and Velasco, G.R. No. 157383, August 10, 2010: The punitive
action against GSIS employees without due notice and hearing cannot be condoned. The Court
corrected the abuse on the part of the leadership of GSIS. The Court struck down the punitive
action of GSIS upon its employees.
Effect of waiver/estoppel: The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic, G.R. No. 174431, August 6,
2012
Right to Counsel:
Carbonel v. CSC, G.R. No. 187689, September 7, 2010: Where a proceeding may result to
criminal liability, party may avail of counsel.
b. Due process in judicial proceedings:
Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 169253, February
20, 2013. Proceedings in the Sandiganbayan are criminal in nature. Proof beyond reasonable
doubt is required to convict and accused must be represented by counsel who will ensure
compliance with the rules of procedure.
c. Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings: Parties are bound by the rules
governing academic requirements and standards of behavior prescribed by the educational
institutions. Resort to courts is available to parties.
Viveres and Suzara v. St. Theresas College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014. While
the issue focused on the right of the minor students to privacy, the Supreme Court upheld the
right of St. Theresas College to take disciplinary action over its students.
Instances when no notice and hearing are required: voluntary appearance and active
participation in previously scheduled proceedings bar the parties from raising the issue
of lack of notice.
Substantive Due Process
B. Equal Protection Clause
1. Definition, Article III, Section1, Constitution
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon et al., G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013. R.a. 9262 does not violate the
equal protection clause for the following reasons: 1. The classification rests on substantial
distinctions; 2. The classification is germane to the purpose of the law; and 3. The classification
is not limited to existing conditions only and apply equally to all members.
2. Conditions for a valid classification:
31

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

NAPOCOR v. Pinatubo Commercial, G. R. no. 179006, March 26, 2010. The guaranty of the
equal protection clause is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification.
3. Basis for classification: age, gender, religion, economic class, ethnicity, race, sexual
orientation, economic class, residence, disability, date of filing/ effectivity of the law
4. Standards of Review
Prevailing standard used: Deferential or Rational Basis Scrutiny which
establishes a rational connection to serve legitimate state interest.
Middle Tier or Intermediate Scrutiny: Challenged classification serves important an
important state interest.
Strict Judicial Scrutiny: Burden is on the state to prove that classification
achieves a compelling state interest.
Law non-discriminatory on its face but discriminatory in its application:
Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010 et al., G.R.Nos.192935 and 193036,
December 7, 2010: E.O. is unconstitutional for singling out President Arroyos administration
only.
Law in relation to other laws: Nicolas v. Romulo, 578 SCRA 438 (2009): VFA is
supplemental to the Mutual Defense Treaty ratified under the 1935 Constitution. The RomuloKenney Agreements were not in accordance with the VFA.
5. Economic Equality
Filipino First Policy: classification based on alienage
6. Political Equality
Dilution of voting rights based on residence.
Exclusion based on sexual orientation
7. Social Equality
Forced resettlement based on ethnicity
Privilege based on ethnicity
C. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
1. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Article III, Sections 1, 2 and 3,
Constitution
Exclusion of Evidence: Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 388 (1967)
People v. Belocura, G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012: The credibility of the evidence of the
corpus delicti in a prosecution for illegal possession of marij11ana under Republic Act No. 6425,
as amended, depends on the integrity of the chain of custody of the marijuana from the time of
its seizure until the time of its presentation as evidence in court. Short of that, the accused is
entitled to an acquittal because the State fails to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
Chain of Custody doctrine: People v. Ronaldo de Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010:
The law enforcers have the duty to preserve the chain of custody over the seized drugs. This
guaranty of integrity of evidence to be used against the accused goes to the very heart of his
fundamental rights.
Confiscation of seized items despite acquittal under P.D. 969: Nogales v. People, G.R. 191080,
November 21, 2011
Probable Cause: HPS Software and Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R. No.
170217, 170694, December 10, 2012: Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a
search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a
cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just
and proper. It requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that
offense are in the place to be searched.
32

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Loss of protection of right: Sales v. People, G.R.No. 191023, February 6, 2013: The search of
the contents of petitioners short pants pockets being a valid search pursuant to routine airport
security procedure, the illegal substance (marijuana) seized from him was therefore admissible
in evidence. Petitioners reluctance to show the contents of his short pants pocket after the
friskers hand felt the rolled papers containing marijuana, and his nervous demeanor aroused
the suspicion of the arresting officers that he was indeed carrying an item or material subject to
confiscation by the said authorities.
2. Requisites for a valid search warrant and warrant of arrest: HPS Software and
Communication Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, et al., G.R. No. 170217, 170694, December 10,
2012: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the validity of the issuance of a search
warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the
probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other
person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant
issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons and things to be seized.
3. Instances of valid warrantless arrest (Review relevant provisions of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure)
4. Valid warrantless searches
> Search incident to a valid arrest: People v. Ngik Bun, Kwok Wai Cheng et al., G.R. No.
180452, January 10, 2011: Arrest was made during the commission of a crime
People v. Buenaventura G.R. No. 184807, November 23, 2011: Arrest made during a Buy
Bust Operation is valid.
> The Plain View Doctrine:
Fajardo v. People, G.R. no. 190889, January 10, 2011: Under the plain view doctrine, objects
falling in the plain view of the officer, who has the right to be in the position to have that view,
are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574 (2005): Plain view doctrine cannot be applied
where there was no evidence in plain view of law enforcers serving the search warrant.
> Checkpoints: Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989)
> Stop and Frisk: People v. Dequina et al., G.R. no. 177570, January 19, 2011: May partake of
consented search.
> Airport Search: People v. Johnson, 348 SCRA (2000): Valid search at airport for security
reasons.
> Moving Vehicle Search: People v. Macarios, G.R. no. 188611, June 16, 2010
> Consented Search
> Searches by Private Entities: People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
> Administrative Searches: buildings, vessels, aircrafts
Pollo v. Chairperson Constantino-David, et al., G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011:
administrative search is different from searches conducted for a commission of a crime.
D. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (SPEECH AND THE PRESS)
1. Definition (Section 4, Article III, Constitution)
2. Bases for Protection: Promotion of Truth, Enhance Principles of Democracy, Expression of
Self- Fulfillment of Citizens.
3. Why State Restricts and Imposes Limitations on Freedom of Expression: Maintenance of
Peace, Promotion of Community Morals, Protection of Individual Dignity.
4. Scope of Freedom of Speech: Verbal Speech (print and broadcast media) and Non-verbal
(symbols)
5. Unprotected Speech/Expression and Protected Speech/Expression, distinguished:

33

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Unprotected Speech/Expression: General Guidelines, Obscenity, and Incitement to National


Security, False or Misleading Advertisement, Libelous Speech, Hate Speech and Contumacious
Speech.
In re: Macasaet, 561 SCRA 395 Contumacious Speech: Indirect contempt which merits a
monetary penalty.
Protected Speech/Expression: all those excluded from unprotected expression may include
utterances critical of public conduct, ordinary commercial speech, satirical speech/parody.
Flor v. People, 454 SCRA 440(2005) Misuse of Public Funds must be proved by competent
evidence.
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA 460 Misconduct of a Public Official
PHCAP v. Duque III, supra, - Ordinary Commercial Speech as part of a marketing strategy.
How Government Restricts Freedom of Expression
Content Based Restrictions distinguished from Content Neutral Restrictions as gleaned
from Justice Carpios concurring opinion in Chavez v. Gonzalez, summarized below:
a. Any content-based prior restraint on PROTECTED expression is unconstitutional.
b. Only unprotected expression is subject to prior restraint.
c. Prior restraint presumes that the expression is unconstitutional.
d. Government has the burden of proof every time it exercises censorship.
Standards of Review
OBrien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions
Social Weather Station v. COMELEC, 357 SCRA 504 (2001)
Miller Test on Indecent Speech
Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79
Roth Test on Obscenity
Gonzales v. Kalaw- Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
Clear and Present Danger Test
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160 (2006
Doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and vagueness
Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc., v. Anti-Terrorism Council,
et al., G.R. No.178552, October 5, 2010 : The doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth
and vagueness are analytical tools developed for testing on their faces statutes in free
speech cases. They cannot be made to do service when what is involved is a criminal
statute.
Libel as a Criminal Offense (Article 354, Revised Penal Code)
GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos, 504 SCRA 638 (2006) Libelous Statement
Binay v. Secretary of Justice, 501 SCRA 312 (2006) - Defamatory
Statement
E. FREEDOM OF RELIGION
1. Separation of Church and State, Article II, Section 6, Constitution
2. Non Establishment of Religion Clause/ Free Exercise Clause/No Religious Test, Art.III,
Sec.5, Constitution
3. Separation of Powers, Article VI, Sec.5 (2), and Article IX C, Section 2(5), Constitution
4. Two Aspects of Freedom of Religion: Freedom to Believe and Freedom to Act on
Ones Beliefs
Estrada v. Escritor, 408 SCRA 1 (2003) 492 SCRA 1 (2006)
Taruc v. De La Cruz, 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
Re: Request of Muslim Employees in the Different Courts in Iligan City (Re:
Office Hours), 477 SCRA 648 (2005)
INC v. CA 259 SCRA 529
34

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union


F. FREEDOM OF ABODE, FREEDOM TO CHANGE ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL
1. Constitutional Guarantee under Section 6, Article III, Constitution
OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012
2. Limitations
Gudani v. Senga, 498 SCRA 671 (2006)
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Sec. Gonzales, G. R. No. 182161, December 31, 2009
G. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
1. Right to Information, Article III, Section 7, Constitution
2. Access to Public Records / Transparency in the Government, Article II, Section 28,
Constitution
3. Limitations
CENPEG v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189546, September 21, 2010: Right of the
People to know the source code in the AES
Senate of the Philippines v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (2006): Right of the people to
know certain actions of the executive branch through congressional inquiries.
Neri v. Senate Committees 549 SCRA 77 (2008): Right of the Executive Branch
to invoke executive privilege.
Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al., G.R. No. 165036. July 5, 2010
H. RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION/RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND TO SEEK REDRESS OF
GRIEVANCES FROM GOVERNMENT
Bayan Muna v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006): The right of the people to
assemble.
IBP v. Mayor Atienza, G.R. No.175241, Feb. 24, 2010: The mayor has no right
to
change venue sought by the requesting party.
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al., G. R. No. 180291, July 27, 2010: Right of
Government employees to express their grievances and upholding their right to
.
due process in administrative proceedings
1. Right to Strike and the Right to Unionize, Article III, Section 8, Constitution
2. Right of Private Sector Employees and Government Employees, Article III, Section 8,
Constitution
I. CONTRACT CLAUSE / NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
1. Concept of Mutual Obligation (Section 10, Article III, Constitution)
2. Concept of Vested Right
3. Waiver of Right
The non-impairment clause may only be invoked against the government.
J. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
1. Representation before the Courts, Article III, Section 11, Constitution
People v. Hon. Azarraga and Prevendido, G. R. No. 187117, October 12, 2011
2. Costs of Litigation
Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re Exemption from Legal and Filing Feesof
the Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596 SCRA 401 (2009)
Re: Request of IBP National Committee on Legal Aid Clients from Paying Filing,
Docket and other Fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7 SC, August 28, 2009
K. RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS
1. Custodial Investigation, Article III, Section 12, Constitution

35

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

2. When Miranda Rule applies (Information given while in custody and information is
testimonial in nature)
3. When Miranda Rule will not apply (Information gathered in non-custodial setting
and information given is non-testimonial in nature)
.
4. Right to Independent Counsel and Scope of Waiver, Article III, Section 12(1),
Constitution
5. Effect of Involuntary Confessions, Article III, Section 12 (2), (3) and (4), Constitution
People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 201: Even as the circumstances lead to
the inevitable conclusion that accused-appellant committed the crime, Lucero claims that since
spermatozoa was found on the deceased, a DNA test should have been conducted by the
prosecution so as to erase all doubts as to the identity of the perpetrator. The Court rejected this
claim.
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229, October 19, 2011: Infraction of the rights of
an accused during custodial investigation or the so-called Miranda Rights render inadmissible
only the extrajudicial confession or admission made during such investigation."The admissibility
of other evidence, provided they are relevant to the issue and is not otherwise excluded by law
or rules, is not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial investigation."
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15 March 2010: It may be added that the selfserving defense of appellant cannot prevail over the positive and straightforward testimony of
AAA. Settled is the rule that, "alibi is an inherently weak defense that is viewed with suspicion
because it is easy to fabricate.
Read also The Anti-Torture Act of 2009 [R.A. No. 9745]
Distinguish between custodial investigation and preliminary investigation: In the former,
one is under restraint by law enforcers; the prosecutor does not abdicate upon himself the
rights, obligations or liabilities of parties since his power is purely inquisitorial in nature; A
complainant does not have a vested right to file a Reply in preliminary investigation because
under Sec. 3(d), Rule 112, the prosecutor may resolve the complaint even without a counteraffidavit.
L. RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
1. Basis of Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13, Constitution
When Bail is allowed
When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 4) or
a matter of discretion on the part of the court (Rule on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 5)
Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil., 634 (1945)
Right to Bail - Sec. 9, Rule 114 provides for guidelines for the court to consider in fixing the
amount of bail. The court may still require the prosecutor to answer questions in order to
ascertain not only the strength of the states evidence but also the amount of bail. The grant of
bail where allowed by law is left to the sound judgment of the court.
2. Nature of Criminal Due Process
Jurisdiction over Criminal Offenses
Criminal Immunity: Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 180564, June 22, 2010: Government
may enter into an agreement to grant immunity provided grantee will become a state witness.
Rights involved in Criminal Proceedings, Article III, Section 14(1) and (4)
Right to Substantive and Procedural Due Process
Presumption of Innocence
Right to be heard by Himself and Counsel
To be informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation against Him
Right to Have a Speedy, Impartial and Public Trial
Right to Meet the Witnesses Face to Face
36

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

To Have Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses and the


Production of Evidence in his behalf
Roquero v. The Chancellor, U.P. College of Manila, G.R. no. 181851, March 9,2010. The
constitutional guarantee to a speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the accused in
criminal proceedings but extends to all parties, including civil and administrative caes, and in all
proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings.
3. Speedy Trial v. Speedy Disposition of Cases, Article III, Section16, Constitution
Dela Pea v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 412 Phil. 921, 929 (2001). The Court laid down certain
guidelines to determine whether the right to a speedy disposition has been violated, as follows:
The concept of speedy disposition is relative or flexible. A mere mathematical reckoning of the
time involved is not sufficient. Particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that right
has been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are as follows: (1) the
length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the assertion or failure to assert such right
by the accused; and (4) the prejudice caused by the delay.
Trillanes IV v. Pimentel, Sr., 356 SCRA 471(2008)
People v. Abulon, 530 SCRA 675
Andaya v. People, 493 SCRA 539 (2007)
M. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, WRIT OF AMPARO, WRIT OF HABEAS DATA, WRIT OF
KALIKASAN
1. Writ of Habeas Corpus Article III, Sections 13 and 15, 1987 Constitution
2. Function of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
3. Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Article III, Section 18, 1987 Constitution
4. Function of the Writs of Amparo [A.M. No.07-9-9-12-SC] and Habeas Data [A.M.
No.08-1-16-SC]
Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Fortun and Angeles v. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, G.R. No. 190293, March 20, 2012: The
constitutional validity of the Presidents proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands of congress before it becomes a
justiciable one in the hands of the Court.
Purpose of the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data:
In the Matter of Petition for Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data in Favor of Noriel H.
Rodriguez v. Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, G.R. No. 191805, 193160, November 15, 2011. The
President, as Commander-in Chief, can be held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances.
When Writ of Habeas Data will not be issued:
Viveres and Suzara v. St. Theresas College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29, 2014: The writ
of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. It is
an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor,
information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce ones
right to the truth and to informational privacy. It seeks to protect a persons right to control
information regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such information is being
collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.
37

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

Writ of Kalikasan
MMDA v. Concerned residents of Manila Bay G.R. Nos. 171947-48, December 18, 2008: Basis
for the issuance of the writ of continuing mandamus.
Validity of Arrest/ Action to Suppress: The accused is stopped from assailing the validity of
his arrest if he fails to raise the issue or to move for quashal of the information against him
based on this ground, before arraignment; Warrantless arrest may be effected under
circumstances allowed under Rule 113, Sec.5(a) of the Rules of Court; When the search
warrant did not target the residence or premises of the offices of the movant, the latter may file a
motion to suppress the use of the seized items as evidence against it for failure of the party
requesting for issuance of the search warrant to comply with the constitutional requirements.
N. THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
1. When Right may be invoked: in all Criminal Cases, Administrative Cases and Impeachment
2. Transactional Immunity
3. Aspects covered by the Witness Protection Program and Criminal Procedure
Agustin v. Court of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315 (2005)
Tanchanco v. Sandiganbayan, 476 SCRA 202 (2005)
O. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
1. No Detention for Political Beliefs or Aspirations, Article III, Section 18 (1), Constitution
2. Exceptions to Involuntary Servitude, Article III, Section 18 (2), Constitution
3. Rational behind the Imposition of Death Penalty, Article III, Section19 (1), Constitution
4. Non-imposition of Excessive Fines, Article III, Section 19 (1), Constitution
5. Prohibition against Cruel and Degrading Punishment, Article III, Section 19(1) and (2),
Constitution
6. Non-Imprisonment for Debt or Poll Tax, Article III, Section 20, Constitution
People v. Dacuycuy, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
P. PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Acquittal/Recantation The extinction of penal action does not carry with it the extinction of
civil liability where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of
evidence is required in civil cases; Recantation or desistance does not necessarily result in the
dismissal of the case if there is independent proof to still establish the guilt of the accused.
Demurrer to evidence Motion must be filed within the non-extendible period of 5 days after
the prosecution rests its case stating specifically upon what ground(s) the motion is filed. This
period runs only after the trial court has ruled on the formal offer of evidence of the prosecution.
The grant of the motion is tantamount to an acquittal and may no longer be appealed
because double jeopardy will set in.
1. Nature of Double Jeopardy, Article III, Section 21, Constitution
The elements of double jeopardy are (1) the complaint or information was sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction; (2) the court had jurisdiction; (3) the accused had been
arraigned and had pleaded; and (4) the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was
dismissed without his express consent.
Nature of right: People v. Dante Tan G.R. No. 167526, July 26, 2010: In People v.
Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court explained the general rule that the grant of a demurrer to
evidence operates as an acquittal and is, thus, final and unappealable. The demurrer to
evidence in criminal cases is "filed after the prosecution had rested its case," and when the
same is granted, it calls "for an appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and its
sufficiency to warrant conviction beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the case
on the merits, tantamount to an acquittal of the accused."

38

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions. In People v. Laguio, Jr., the
Supreme Court stated that the only instance when double jeopardy will not attach is when the
RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
When right will not apply: Braza v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 195032, February 20, 2013:
Having given his conformity and accepted the conditional arraignment and its legal
consequences, Braza is estopped from assailing its conditional nature just to conveniently
avoid being arraigned and prosecuted of the new charge under the second information.
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v. People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and 176864, January 18, 2011:
To reconsider a judgment of acquittal places the accused twice in jeopardy of being punished
for the crime of which he has already been absolved. There is reason for this provision of the
Constitution. In criminal cases, the full power of the State is ranged against the accused. If there
is no limit to attempts to prosecute the accused for the same offense after he has been
acquitted, the infinite power and capacity of the State for a sustained and repeated litigation
would eventually overwhelm the accused in terms of resources, stamina, and the will to fight.
Mistrial as ground for exception: People v. C.A.., G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012: The Court
reiterated that mistrial is the only exception to the well-settled, even axiomatic, principle that
acquittal is immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground of double jeopardy. The
Court was categorical in stating that a re-examination of the evidence without a finding of
mistrial will violate the right to repose of an accused, which is what is protected by the rule
against double jeopardy.
2. Situations Covered: Identity of the Act and Identity of Offenses
People v. Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
Loney v. People 482 SCRA 194 (2006)
3. Requisites of Double Jeopardy
Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010
4. Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to Evidence
Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. no. 172777, October 19, 2011: It is well-settled that in
criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or
the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense,
the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution. If a criminal case is
dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect
may be undertaken only by the State through the Solicitor General.
Q. BAN ON EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
1. Characteristics of an Ex Post Facto Law, Article III, Section 22, Constitution
Sufficiency of Information: People v. Balao, et al., G.R. 176819, January 26, 2011: The Court
held that the fundamental test in determining the adequacy of the averments in an information is
whether the facts alleged, if hypothetically admitted, would establish the essential elements of
the crime. Matters extrinsic or evidence aliunde should not be considered.
2. When Retroactivity of a law is allowed
Salvador v. Mapa, 539 SCRA 34 (2007)
Valeroso v. People, supra
VII. Social Justice, Human Rights and other Guaranteed Rights
A. Social Justice defined, Art. XIII, Sec. 1, Sec. 2.
Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil. 726 (1940). In this case the Court defined social justice in this
wise: Social justice is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy," but the
39

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State so that
justice in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social
justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the Government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the competent elements of society,
through the maintenance of a proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the
members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable,
or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
Note: The precept of social justice is interlinked with the exercise of police power. In the
same case, the Court further said that: Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the
recognition of the necessity of interdependence among divers and diverse units of a
society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as
a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and
paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all
persons, and of bringing about the greatest good to the greatest number.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW


X. Public International Law
A. Primary Sources of International Law:
1. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states;
2. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; and
3. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.
B. Secondary Sources of International Law:
1. judicial decisions; and
2. the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary
means for the determination of rules of law.
C. Independent foreign policy and a nuclear-free Philippines (Art. II, Sections 7-8 and Art.
XVIII, Sections 4 and 25). This pertains to use of nuclear weapons and not nuclear
source of energy.
D. Respect for human dignity and human rights (Art. II, Sec. 11, Art. III, Sections 17-19,
and Art. XVI, Sec. 5(2)) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration
adopted by the United Nations General Assembly as an offshoot of the aftermath of World War
II. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols.
In a strict sense, the Declaration is not treaty but it has been considered as a constitutive
document for the purpose of defining fundamental freedoms and human rights.
E. Adherence to International Law (Preamble, Art. II, Sec. 2, Sections 7-8)/ Extradition
Secretary of Justice v. Judge Lantion, 343 SCRA 377. Speaking through Justice Melo, the
Court said that the individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis--vis the vast and
overwhelming powers of government. His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are
his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need. In
dismissing the petition, the Court upheld a citizen's basic due process rights against the
government's ironclad duties under a treaty. The constitutional issue in the case at bar does
not even call for "justice outside legality," since private respondent's due process rights,
although not guaranteed by statute or by treaty, are protected by constitutional guarantees. It
40

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

chose not to favor the strict construction over guarantees against the deprivation of liberty
because that would not be in keeping with the principles of democracy enshrined in the
Constitution.
Concepts:
In an obiter dictum in its 1970 judgment in the Barcelona Traction case, the International Court
of Justice identified a category of international obligations called erga omnes, namely
obligations owed by states to the international community as a whole, intended to protect and
promote the basic values and common interests of all.
Examples of erga omnes norms include piracy, genocide, slavery, torture, and racial
discrimination. The concept was recognized in the International Court of Justice's decision in
theBarcelona Traction case [(Belgium v Spain) (Second Phase) ICJ Rep 1970 3 at paragraph
33]:
" an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards
the international community as a whole, and those arising vis--vis another State in the
field of diplomatic protection. By their very nature, the former are the concern of all
States. In view of the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a
legal interest in their protection; they are obligations erga omnes. [at 34] Such
obligations derive, for example, in contemporary international law, from the outlawing
of acts of aggression, and of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning
the basic rights of the human person, including protection from slavery and racial
discrimination. Some of the corresponding rights of protection have entered into the
body of general international law . . . others are conferred by international instruments of
a universal or quasi-universal character."
Ex aequo et bono (Latin for "according to the right and good" or "from equity and
conscience"). In the context of arbitration, it refers to the power of the arbitrators to dispense
with consideration of the law and consider solely what they consider to be fair and equitable in
the case at hand.
Article 38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provides that the court may
decide cases ex aequo et bono, but only where the parties agree thereto. Article 33 of
the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Arbitration Rules (1976) provides
that the arbitrators shall consider only the applicable law, unless the arbitral agreement allows
the arbitrators to consider ex aequo et bono, or amiable compositeur.
F. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy
In the field of public international law, the law of war has two dimensions: justifications to
engage in war(jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime conduct (jus in
bello or International humanitarian law). As a humanitarian concern, the laws of war
address declarations of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of
war; military necessity (use of an attack or action intended to help the military objective and use
of proportional and excessive force to endanger civilians(, along with distinction (careful
assessment as to who are combatants and the civilians) and proportionality( the legal use of
force whereby belligerents must make sure that harm caused to civilians or civilian property is
not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated attack
41

[DEJA ENTENDU NOTES] [Poli] [v.1.0, 2016]


deja [already] + entendu [heard] = youve heard all of this before

anticipated by an attack on military objective; and the prohibition of certain weapons that may
cause unnecessary suffering.
The laws of war should mitigate the consequences of war by:
1. Shielding both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering;
2. Ensuring that certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of
the enemy, particularly prisoners of war, the wounded and sick, and civilians, are
protected; and
3. Endeavouring that peace is restored.
G.
The International
Criminal
Court
(ICC),
an intergovernmental
organization and international tribunal, has the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for
the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It sits in The
Hague in the Netherlands. The ICC is intended to complement existing national judicial
systems and it may therefore only exercise its jurisdiction when certain conditions are met, such
as when national courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals or when the United
Nations Security Council or individual states refer investigations to the Court. The ICC began
functioning on 1 July 2002, the date that the Rome Statute entered into force. The Philippines is
a signatory to the Rome Statute.
Bayan Muna v. Romulo and Ople, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011. Philippines exercises
the prerogative to prosecute criminal offense equally covered by the Rome Statute.
H. Protection of Migrant Workers
The Philippines is a signatory to the International Convention on the Protection of the
Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. This instrument is
multilateral treaty governing the protection of migrant workers and families. Concludedon 18
December 1990. it entered into force on 1 July 2003 after the threshold of
20 ratifying States was reached in March 2003. The Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)
monitors implementation of the convention, and is one of the seven UN-linked human rights
treaty bodies.

42