Sec. 10, Article III
12, Article III
No law impairing the obligation of contract shall be
passed.
The freedom to contract is not absolute; all
contracts and all rights are subject to the police power of
the State and not only may regulations which affect them
be established by the State, but all such regulations must
be subject to change from time to time, as the general
well-being of the community may require, or the
circumstances may change, or as experience may
demonstrate the necessity.
The purpose of the impairment clause is to
safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements
against unwarranted interference by the State. As a rule,
they should be respected by the legislature and not
tampered with by subsequent laws that will change the
intention of the parties or modify their rights and
obligations. The will of the obligor and the obligee must
be observed; the obligation of their contract must not be
impaired.
However, the protection of the impairment
clause is not absolute. There are instances when contracts
valid at the time of their conclusion may become invalid,
or some of their provisions may be rendered inoperative
or illegal, by virtue of supervening legislation.
Limitations:
1. Police power—prevails over contracts;
2. Eminent domain—may impair obligation of contracts;
3. Taxation—cannot impair obligation of contracts.
Impairment—anything that diminishes the efficacy of a
contract.
There is impairment when there is change in the
terms of a legal contract between parties, either in the
time or mode of performance, or imposes new conditions,
or dispenses with those expressed, or authorizes for its
satisfaction something different from that provided in its
terms. (Clemons vs. Nolting, No. 17959, January 24, 1922)
Hon. Heherson Alvarez vs. PICOP Resources, Inc.,
G.R. No. 162243, November 29, 2006, in unequivocal
terms, the SC have consistently held that such licenses
concerning the harvesting of timber in the country’s
forests cannot be considered contracts that would bind
the Government regardless of changes in policy and the
demands of public interest and welfare. Since timber
licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause
cannot be invoked.
Sec. 11, Article III
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.
Inspired by social justice policy and covered by
the equal protection clause, this rule has been
implemented by several provisions of the Rules of Court in
favor of the pauper litigant. The IBP provides deserving
indigents with free legal aid, including representation in
court, and similar services available from the DOJ to
litigants who cannot afford retained counsel, like the
accused in a criminal case who can ask for the assistance
of counsel de officio. There are also private legal
assistance organizations now functioning for the benefit
of penurious clients who otherwise might be unable to
resort to the courts of justice because only of their
misfortune of being poor. This provision makes them the
equal of the rich before the law.
Sec.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of
an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right
to remain silent and to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except
in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or
any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.
Rights of an Accused under Custodial Investigation:
°Exist only in custodial interrogation
°Available when the investigation is no longer a general
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police
custody, the police carry out a process of interrogation
that tend to elicit incriminating statements.
Custodial Investigation— Any questioning initiated by
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant way.
It shall include the practice of issuing “invitation”
to a person who is investigated in connection with an
offense he is suspected to have committed, without
prejudice to the liability of the “inviting” officer for any
violation of the law. (RA 7438)
Miranda rights—(Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436) x x x
The prosecution may not use statements,
whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from
custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it
demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective
to secure the privilege against self-incriminations. By
custodial interrogation, it means questioning initiated by
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken
into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant way. As for the procedural
safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective
means are devised to informed accused-persons of their
right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to
exercise it, the following measures are required.
Prior to any questioning, the person must be
warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any
statement he does make may be used as evidence against
him, and that he has a right to the presence of an
attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant
may waive effectuations of these rights, provided the
waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If,
however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of
the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney
before speaking there can be no questioning. Likewise, if
the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he
does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not
question him. The mere fact that he may have answered
some questions or volunteered some statements on his
own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from
answering any further inquiries until he has consulted
with an attorney and thereafter consents to be
questioned.
°Applies only from the moment the investigating officer
begins to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting
admissions, confessions or any information from the
accused.
People vs. Lugod, G.R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001,
the accused should have been entitled to Miranda rights,
because even assuming that he was not yet under
interrogation at the time he was brought to the police
station, his confession was elicited by a police officer who
promised to help him if he told the truth. Furthermore,
when he allegedly pointed out the body of the victim, the
atmosphere was highly intimidating and not conducive to
a spontaneous response as the whole police force and
nearly 100 townspeople escorted him there. Not having
the benefit of counsel and not having been informed of
his rights, the confession is inadmissible.
People vs. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12,
2002, it was held that this guarantee does not apply to
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning
by the authorities but given in an ordinary manner
whereby the suspect orally admitted having committed
the offense. Neither can it apply to admissions or
confessions made by a suspect before he was placed
under custodial investigation. In this case, the narration
before the Barangay Captain prior to custodial
investigation was admissible in evidence, but not the
admissions made before Judge Dicon, inasmuch as the
questioning by the judge was done after the suspect had
been arrested and such questioning already constituted
custodial investigation.
Rights guaranteed:
1. Right to remain silent;
2. Right to have a competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice at all stages of the
investigation;
Independent and competent counsel—willing to
safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused
3. Right to be informed of such rights;
Rationale:
a. to make him aware of it;
b. to overcome the inherent pressure o the
interrogating atmosphere; and
c. to show the individual that his interrogators are
prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose
to invoke it.
4. Right to be provided with counsel, if the person cannot
afford one;
°These rights cannot be waives except in writing and in
the presence of counsel; it is not required in a police-
line up as the latter is not part of a custodial inquest.
5. No torture, force, etc. which vitiate free will shall be
used;
6. Secret detention places are prohibited; and
7. Confession/admissions obtained in violation of rights
are inadmissible in evidence.
Ways of identifying the suspects During Custodial
Investigation:
1. Show-ups (out-of-court identification)—where the
suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for
identification;
People vs. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, January 16,
2002, the accused, having become the focus of
attention by the police after he had been pointed to by
a certain Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the crime,
it was held that when the out-of-court identification was
conducted by the police, the accused was already under
custodial investigation.
2. Mug shots—where photographs are shown to the
witness to identify the suspect; and
3. Police Line ups—where a witness identifies the suspect
from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. It is not
considered a part of any custodial inquest because it is
conducted before that stage of investigation is reached
(People vs. Bravo). The process has not yet shifted from
the investigatory to the accusatory stage, and it is usually
the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and
who gives a statement in the course of the line-up (People
vs. Amestuzo).
Factors in Resolving the Admissibility of and Relying on
Out-of-Court Identification of Suspects: TOTALITY OF
CIRCUMSTANCES TEST
1. The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the
time of the crime;
2. The witness’ degree of attention at that time;
3. The accuracy of any prior description given by the
witness;
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at
the identification;
5. The length of time between the crime and the
identification; and
6. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
Two (2) kinds of Involuntary or Coerced Confessions:
1. Those which are the product of 3rd degree methods
such as torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation,
which are dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12;
2. Those which are given without the benefit of Miranda
warnings.
Extrajudicial Confessions—are presumed voluntary, and,
in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the
declarant’s consent in executing the same has been
vitiated, such confession will be sustained.
To be admissible, it must be:
1. Voluntary;
2. Made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel;
3. Express; and
4. In writing.
Investigations not considered custodial interrogation
1. Those conducted by an audit examiner
2. Those conducted by the Court Administrator
3. Those conducted by the employer
For the reason that these people are not law
enforcement officers. However, in the case of People vs.
Salonga, G.R. No. 131131, June 21, 2001, after an audit,
the accused was summoned to appear before the
Assistant Accountant of MetroBank and, in the course of
the interview, accused admitted having issued the subject
cashier’s checks without any legitimate transaction, the
written confession was held admissible in evidence
inasmuch as the interview did not constitute custodial
investigation.
In Ladiana vs. People, the counter-affidavit submitted by
the respondent during preliminary investigation is
admissible because preliminary investigation is not part of
custodial investigation. The interrogation by the police, if
any would already have been ended at the time of the
filing of the criminal case in court or in the public
prosecutor’s office.
Spontaneous statements—those elicited through
questioning by law enforcement officers, but given in an
ordinary manner where the appellant verbally admits to
having committed the offense, are admissible. (People vs.
Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004)
WAIVER— It must be in writing and made in the presence
of the counsel. The burden of proving that there was a
valid waiver rests on the prosecution. The presumption of
official duty has been regularly performed cannot prevail
over the presumption of innocence.
What may be waived?
1. Right to remain silent
2. Right to counsel
Exclusionary Rule— (§17.Right against self-incrimination)
Confession or admission obtained in violation of Sections
12 and 17 of Article III shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Fruit of the poisonous tree—once the primary source is
shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary
or derivative evidence derived from it is inadmissible.
Evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be
used to gain other evidence because the originally
obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
obtained.
Sec. 13, Article III
All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt
is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released or recognizance as may
be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.
Right to Bail
Bail—the security given for the release of a person in
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman,
conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may
be required.
° The right to bail may be invoked by any person once
detention commences even if no formal charges have yet
to be filed;
° It can availed of by a person who is in custody of law or
otherwise deprived of his liberty;
° Suspension of the writ of the privilege of habeas corpus
does not suspend the right to bail;
° Even when the accused has previously jumped bail, still
he cannot be denied bail before conviction if it is a matter
of right. The remedy is to increase the amount of bail;
° Right to bail has not been recognized and is not available
to the military.
Standards for fixing amount of bail:
1. Financial ability of the accused;
2. Nature and circumstances of the offense;
3. Penalty for the offense charged;
4. Character and reputation of the accused;
5. Age and health of the accused;
6. Weight of evidence against the accused;
7. Probability of appearance at trial;
8. Forfeiture of other bonds by him;
9. He was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
10.Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail.
Bail as a matter of right—
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter
of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as prescribed by law:
1. Before or after conviction by the MTC; and
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment.
3. The evidence of guilt is not strong.
Bail when discretionary—
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the
accused to bail.
2. The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to
continue on provisional liberty after the same bail bond
during the period to appeal subject to the consent of the
bondsman.
3. If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years, the
accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted
shall be cancelled, upon showing by the following or other
similar circumstances:
a. That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
or habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime
aggravated by the circumstance of reiteracion;
b. That the accused is found to have previously
escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence,
or has violated the conditions of his bail without
valid justification;
c. That the accused committed the offense while
on probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;
d. That the circumstances of the accused or his
case indicates the probability of flight if released
on bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that during the
pendency of the appeal, the accused may commit
another crime.
Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion—
reasonable notice of hearing is required to be given to the
prosecutor, or at least he must be asked for his
recommendation, because in fixing the amount of bail,
the judge is required to take into account a number of
factors.
When bail shall be denied:
1) No person, regardless of the stage of the criminal
prosecution, shall be admitted to bail if:
a. Charged with capital offense, or an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment; and
b. Evidence of guilt is strong.
2) When the accused is charged with an offense
punishable by reclusion perpetua or higher, a hearing on
the motion for bail must be conducted by the judge to
determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.
3) Without a hearing, the judge could not possibly asses
the weight of the evidence against the accused before
granting the latter’s application for bail.(USA vs. Hon.
Purganan ;Government of Hongkong vs. Judge Olalia)
Sec. 14, Article III
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
Rights of the Accused:
1. Criminal due process:
a. Opportunity to be heard in court of competent
jurisdiction;
b. The accused must proceed against under orderly
processes of law;
c. He must be given notice and opportunity to be
heard;
d. The judgment rendered was within the authority of
a constitutional law.
2. Presumption of innocence—
Every circumstance favoring the innocence of the
accused must be taken into account. The proof against
him must not be permitted to sway judgment and the
presumption that official duty was regularly
performed cannot, by itself, prevail over the
constitutional presumption of innocence.
3. Right to be heard by himself and counsel
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him
Objectives:
a. To furnish the accused with such a description of
the charge against him as will enable him to make the
defense;
b. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
protection against a further prosecution for the same
cause; and
c. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it
may decide whether they are sufficient in law to
support a conviction, if one should be had.
°Description, not designation, of the offense is
controlling.
Void-for-Vagueness Rule—the accused is denied the
right to be informed of the charge against him, and to
due process as well, where the statute itself is
couched in such indefinite language that it is not
possible for men of ordinary intelligence to determine
therefrom what acts or omissions are punished and,
hence, shall be avoided.
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001, every legislative measure is
presumed constitutional. Petitioner failed to discharge
the burden to overcome the presumption of
constitutionality.
5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial—
Impartial—the judge must not be bias and not
motivated by malice or bad faith. The Judge must not
only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.
6. Right to meet witness face to face—
Witnesses not submitted for cross-examination are
not admissible as evidence.
However, right to cross-examination may be waived.
7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of
witnesses and production of evidence
8. Trial in Absentia:
° After arraignment;
° Due notice; and
° Absence is unjustified.
Plea of guilt to a capital offense—
1. There must be searching inquiry into the voluntariness
of the plea and the full comprehension of the
consequences thereof;
2. Presentation of evidence to prove the guilt of the
accused and the precise degree of his culpability;
3. The accused must be asked if he desire to present
evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he so
desires.
Sec. 15, Article III
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when
the public safety requires. (IRT Section 18, Article VII)
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief
of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days,
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place
the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a
vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined
by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist
and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within
twenty-four hours following such proclamation or
suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without
need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate
proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within
thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the
operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning
of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize
the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
writ.
 The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall
apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ,
any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
Writ of habeas corpus— A writ issued by the court
directed to a person detaining another, commanding him
to produce the body of the prisoner at designated time
and place, with the day and cause of his capture and
detention, to do, to submit to, and to receive whatever
court or judge awarding writ shall consider in his behalf.
It lies only where the restraint of a person’s
liberty has been judicially adjudged to be illegal or
unlawful.
A petition for habeas corpus will be given due
course only if it shows that petitioner is being detained or
restrained of his liberty unlawfully. A restrictive custody
and monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police
officers under investigation by their superiors is not a
form of illegal detention or restraint of liberty. (SP02
Manalo vs. PNP Chief Calderon, G.R. No. 178920,
October 15, 2007)
WRIT OF AMPARO
The Rule on Writ of Amparo (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC)
It was drafted pursuant to the constitutional power of the
Supreme Court to promulgate rules and regulations for
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights.
WRIT OF AMPARO—it is a remedy available to any person
whose right to life, liberty, and security has been violated
or is threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or office, or of a private
individual or entity. The writ covers extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
It is a writ which may be issued by the courts based on
this constitutional power of the SC to promulgate rules for
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. It
is a remedy to enforce fundamental rights.
It would compel state agents to look for the missing
person and the agents would be held liable if they did not
exert adequate effort in finding the person.
“amparo”—means protection, from “amparar” meaning
“to protect”
Who may file:
The petition may be filed by the aggrieved party or by any
qualified person or entitiy in the following order:
°Any member of the immediate family, namely:
i. Spouse ii. Children iii. Parents of the aggrieved party
° Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the 4th civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned
above; or
° Any concerned citizen, organization, association, or
institution, if there is no known member of the immediate
family or relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends
the right of all other authorized parties to file similar
petitions. Likewise, the filing of the petition by an
authorized party on behalf of the aggrieved party
suspends the rights of all others, observing the order
established by the law.
Where can be filed?
The petition may be filed on any day at any time with the:
· RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was
committed or any of its elements occurred;
or any Justice of such courts :
· Sandiganbayan
· Court of Appeals
· Supreme Court
*The writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the
Philippines. The court, justice or judge shall immediately
order the issuance of the writ if on the face of the petition
it ought to issue. It is served on the respondent by a
judicial officer or by a person deputized by the court,
justice or judge who shall retain a copy on which to make
a return of service.
*In case the writ cannot be served personally on the
respondent, the rules on substituted service shall apply.
A clerk of court who refuses to issue the writ after its
allowance, or a deputized person who refuses to serve the
same, shall be punished by the court, justice or judge
for contempt without prejudice to other disciplinary
actions.
Return of the Writ—the respondent shall file a verified
written return together with the supporting affidavits
within seventy-two (72) hours.
If he fails to file a return, the court, justice or judge shall
proceed to hear the petition ex parte or even without the
appearance of the respondent.
RTC—returnable before such court or judge
SB/CA:
*Returnable before such court or any justice thereof; or
*To any RTC of the place where the threat, act or
omission was committed or any of its elements occurred
SC:
*Returnable before such court or any of its justices;
*Before the SB or CA or any of their justices; or
*To any RTC of the place where the threat, act or
omission was committed or any of its elements occurred
Hearing on the Petition— The hearing shall be summary
in nature. However, the court, justice or judge may call for
a preliminary conference to clarify or simplify some issues
and determine the possibility of obtaining stipulations and
admissions from the parties.
Available Interim Reliefs:
1. Temporary Protection Order—upon motion or motu
proprio, the court, justice or judge may order that the
petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the
immediate family be protected in a government agency or
by an accredited person or private institution capable of
keeping and securing their safety
2. Inspection Order—issued to any person in possession
or control of a designated land or other property, to
permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring,
surveying, or photographing the property or any relevant
object or operation thereon. The movant must show that
the order is necessary to establish the right of the
aggrieved party alleged to be threatened or violated. It
expires five (5) days after date of its issuance, unless
extended for justifiable reasons.
3. Witness Protection Order—the witness may be
referred to the DOJ for admission to the Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Program, or to other
government agencies, or to accredited persons or private
institutions capable of keeping and securing their safety.
*Only the first two interim reliefs are available to the
respondent after he filed a verified motion supported by
affidavits or testimonies of witnesses having personal
knowledge of the defenses of the respondent, and after
due hearing.
The Court shall render judgment within 10 days from the
time the petition is submitted for decision. If the
allegations in the petition are proven by substantial
evidence, the court shall grant the privilege of the writ
and such reliefs as may be deemed proper and
appropriate; otherwise, the privilege shall be denied.
If the court determines that it cannot proceed for a valid
cause such as the failure of petitioner or witnesses to
appear due to threats on their lives, it shall not dismiss
the petition. The court shall archive it instead. The
amparo court may, on its own or upon motion by any
party, order revival of the petition when ready for further
proceedings. The petition shall be dismissed with
prejudice upon failure to prosecute the case after the
lapse of two (2) years from notice to the petitioner of the
order archiving the case.
POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
It is the power of courts to test validity of executive and
legislative acts if the same are in accordance with the
Constitution. It is an expression of supremacy of
Constitution.
Justiciable Question—a given right, legally demandable
and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right,
and a remedy granted by law for said breach of right
Political Questions—those questions which, under the
constitution, are to be decided by the people in their
sovereign capacity; or in regard to which full discretionary
authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branches of government.
Political Question Doctrine has been greatly diminished.
*Political questions are questions of policy. They involve
the wisdom of an act or the efficacy or the necessity of a
particular measure. These are questions which are better
left for the political branches of the government to
determine or resolve.
*Arose from doctrine of separation of powers
Legislative and Executive—political branches of the
government—where laws are enacted and enforced.
Sec. 16, Article III
All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
administrative bodies.
Enriquez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174902-
06, February 15, 2008, this right, like the right to a speedy
trial, is deemed violated when the proceedings are
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays.
The concept of speedy disposition of cases is relative or
flexible. A simple mathematical computation of the time
involved is insufficient. The facts and circumstances
peculiar to each case must be examined. In ascertaining
whether the right to a speedy disposition of cases has
been violated, the following factors must be considered:
1. The length of delay;
2. The reasons for the delay;
3. The assertion or failure to assert such right by the
accused; and
4. The prejudice caused by the delay. (Tilendo vs.
Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165975, September 13,
2007)
Sec. 17, Article III
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
Right against self-incrimination— Availability:
Not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all other
government proceedings, including civil actions and
administrative or legislative investigations
May be claimed not only by accused but by any witness
to whom an incriminating question is addressed.
Scope:
It applies only against testimonial compulsion and
production of documents, papers and chattels in court
except when books of account are to be examined in
exercise of power of taxation and police power.
Two (2) types of Immunity Statutes:
1. Transactional Immunity Statute—testimony of any
person or whose possession of documents or other
evidence necessary or convenient to determine the truth
in any investigation conducted is immune from criminal
prosecution for an offense to which such compelled
testimony relates; and
2. Use Immunity Statute—prohibits the use of a witness’
compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in
connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.
Sec. 18, Article III
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
Right against Involuntary Servitude
It is a condition where one is compelled by force,
coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor
for another, whether he is paid or not.
General Rule: No involuntary servitude shall exist.
Exceptions:
1. As punishment for a crime whereof one has been
duly convicted;
2. Service in defense of the State;
3. Naval enlistment;
4. Posse commitatus;
5. Return to work order in industries affected with
public interest; and
6. Patria potestas.
Sec. 19, Article III
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall
be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Prohibited Punishments
Mere severity does not constitute cruel or unusual
punishment. To violate constitutional guarantee, penalty
must be flagrant and plainly oppressive, disproportionate
to nature of offense as to shock senses of community.
Sec. 21, Article III
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and
an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Right against Double Jeopardy
Requisites:
1. A valid complaint or information;
2. Filed before competent court;
3. To which defendant has pleaded; and
4. Defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the
case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his
express consent.
Two (2) types:
1. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense;
2. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar
to another prosecution for the same act.
To substantiate a claim of double jeopardy, the following
must be proven:
1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second;
2. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense,
or the second offense includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the first
information, or is an attempt to commit the same or is
a frustration thereof.
Legal Jeopardy Attaches Only:
1. Upon a valid indictment;
2. Before a competent court;
3. After arraignment;
4. When a valid plea has been entered and
5. The case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without the express consent of the accused.
General Rule: Dismissal of action, when made at the
instance of the accused, does not put the accused in first
jeopardy. Exceptions:
1. When ground for dismissal is insufficiency of
evidence; or 2. When the proceedings have been
unreasonably prolonged as to violate the right of the
accused of a speedy trial.
Crimes covered:
1. Same offense; or attempt to commit or frustration
thereof or for any offense which necessarily includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in original
complaint or information; and
2. When an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall bar another
prosecution for the same act.
Doctrine of Supervening Event—prosecution for another
offense if subsequent development changes the character
of the first indictment under which he may have already
been charged or convicted.
Conviction of accused shall not bar another prosecution
for an offense which necessarily includes the offense
originally charged when:
1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts
arising from the same act or omission;
2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or discovered
only after filing of former complaint or information; and
3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the
consent of prosecutor or offended party.
Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006,
for double jeopardy to attach, the case against the
accused must have been dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of
competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information sufficient
in form and substance and the accused pleaded to the
said charge.
People vs. Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, et al., G.R. No. 130106,
July 15, 2006, after trial on the merits, an acquittal is
immediately final and cannot be appealed on the ground
of double jeopardy. The only exception where double
jeopardy cannot be invoked is where there is finding of
mistrial resulting in a denial of due process.
Sec. 22, Article III
No ex-post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Right against Ex-Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder
Ex-Post Facto Law— The equivalent of the impairment
clause in criminal matters is the prohibition against the
passage of the ex post facto law. This is because the ex
post facto law, like the law impairing the obligation of the
contracts, operates retroactively to affect antecedent
acts. A law can never be considered ex post facto as long
as it operates prospectively since its structures would
cover only offenses committed after and not before its
enactment. Basically, an ex post facto law is one that
would make a previous act criminal although it was not so
at the time it was committed.
Kinds:
1. Law criminalizing act done before its passage;
Example: A law passed in 1990 raising the age of
seduction from 18 to 25 years, effective 1980
2. Law aggravating penalty for crime committed before
passage;
Example: A law passed in 2000 designating the crime of
homicide through reckless imprudence as murder,
effective 1990
3. Law that changes punishment, and inflicts greater or
more severe punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when committed;
Example: A law passed in 2000 increasing the penalty for
libel from prision correccional to prision mayor, effective
1990
4. Law altering legal rules of evidence and receives less or
different testimony than law required at the time of
commission, in order to convict accused;
Example: A law passed in 2000 requiring for conviction
merely preponderance of evidence instead of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, effective 1990
5. Law assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
in effect imposes a penalty of deprivation of right for
something which when done was lawful; and
 Example: A law passed in 2000 depriving professionals of
the right to practice for failure or refusal to vote, effective
1990.
6. Law depriving accused of some lawful protection to
which he had been entitled, such a protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation of amnesty.
Example: A law passed in 2000 lengthening the period
for prescription of blackmail from 5 to 10 years, effective
1990.
Characteristics:
1. It refers to criminal matters;
2. It is retroactive in application; and
3. It works to the prejudice of the accused.
In the case of US vs. Gomez Colonel, 12 Phil 279, an
information for adultery filed by the prosecutor was
dismissed by the SC on the ground that at the time of the
alleged commission of the offense, prosecution could be
commenced only on complaint of the offended spouse. It
was held that the amendatory law permitting the
prosecutor to initiate the charge was ex post facto.
Bill of Attainder—
· It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial
· It is a legislative declaration of guilt
· Essential:
1. Specification of certain individuals or a group of
individuals;
2. The imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise;
and
3. Lack of judicial trial.
It substitute legislative fiat for a judicial determination of
guilt. Thus, it is only when a statute applies either to
named individuals or to easily ascertainable members
of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them
without judicial trial that it becomes a bill of attainder.
Article IV
CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship- is membership in a political community which
is personal and more or less permanent in character.
Nationality- is membership in any class or form of political
community. Thus, nationals may be citizens [if member of
a democratic community] or subjects [if members of a
monarchial community]. It does not necessarily include
the right or privilege of exercising political and civil rights.
Usual modes of acquiring citizenship:
a. By Birth
i. Jus sanguinis-by blood
ii. Jus soli-by birth
b. By Naturalization
c. By Marriage
The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the principle
of JUS SANGUINIS.
Thereunder, a child follows the nationality or citizenship
of the parents regardless of the
place of his birth, as opposed to the doctrine of JUS SOLI
which determines the
nationality or citizenship on the basis of place of birth.
(Valles vs. COMELEC, 337
SCRA 543)
Modes (by birth) applied in the Philippines
A. Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution
i. Jus Sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were
Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and residing in the
islands who did not declare their intention of
preserving Spanish nationality between said date and
October 11, 1900, were declared citizens of the
Philippines [Sec. 4, Philippine Bill of 1902; Sec. 2, Jones
Law of 1916], and their children born after April 11,
1899. (en masse Filipinization)
ii. Jus Soli. Those declared as Filipino citizens by the
courts are recognized as such today, not because of
the application of the jus soli principle, but principally
because of the doctrine of res judicata.
B. After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution: Only the
Jus Sanguinis doctrine.
Section 1, Article IV— The following are citizens of the
Philippines:
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution; (February 2, 1987)
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines; (jus sanguinis)
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2, Article IV— Natural-born citizens are those
who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1
hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Rosalind Ybasco Lopez was born on May 16, 1934 in
Australia, to spouses Telesforo Ybasco, a Filipino citizen
and native of Daet, Camarines Norte, and Theresa
Marquez, an Australian. Is she a Filipino citizen and,
therefore, qualified to run for Governor of her province?
°Historically, she was born a year before the 1935
Constitution took into effect and at that time, what
served as the Constitution of the Philippines were the
organic acts by which the US governed the country. These
were the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and the Philippine
Autonomy Act of August 29, 1916, also known as the
Jones Law.
These laws defined who were deemed to be
citizens of the Philippine Islands. Xxx Under both organic
acts, all inhabitants of the Philippines who were
Spanishsubjects on April 11, 1899 and resided therein
including their children are deemed to be Philippine
citizens. Private respondent’s father, Telesforo, was born
on January 5, 1879 in Daet, Camarines Norte, a fact duly
evidenced by a certified true copy of an entry in the
registry of Births. Thus, under the Philippine Bill of 1902
and the Jones Law, Telesforo Ybasco was deemed to be a
Philippine citizen. By virtue of the same laws, which were
the law in force at the time of her birth, Rosalind Ybasco
Lopez is likewise a citizen of the Philippines.
The signing into law of the 1935 Constitution has
established the principle of jus sanguinis as basis for the
acquisition of Philippine citizenship xxx. This principle
confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship. It was
subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987
Constitutions.
Thus, herein private respondent, Rosalind Ybasco
Lopez, is a Filipino citizen, having been born to a Filipino
father. The fact of her being born in Australia is not
tantamount to her losing her Philippine citizenship. If
Australia follows the principle of jus soli, then at most,
private respondent can also claim Australian citizenship
resulting to her possession of dual citizenship. (Valles vs.
COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000)
Maria Jeanette Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434,
March 3, 2004 (on the controversy surrounding the
citizenship of FPJ) –The Court took note of the fact that
Lorenzo Pou (grandfather of FPJ), who died in 1954 at the
age of 84 years of age, would have been born sometime in
1870, when the Philippines was under the Spanish
rule, and that San Carlos, pangasinan, his place of
residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any
other evidence, could have well been his place of
residence before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would
have benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the
Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino citizenship of
Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would thereby extend to his son,
Allan F. Poe (father of FPJ). The 1935 Constitution, during
which regime FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship
to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens
regardless of whether such children are legitimate or
illegitimate.
Marriage by Filipino to an alien: “Citizens of the
Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship,
unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the
law, to have renounced it” [Sec.4, Art. IV].
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar,
Vicente D. Ching, Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999—
Vicente Ching, a legitimate child, having been born on
April 11, 1964 of Filipino mother and an alien father, was
already 35 years old when he complied with the
requirements of CA 625 on June 15, 1999, or over 14
years after he had reached the age of majority. By any
reasonable yardstick, Ching’s election was clearly beyond
the allowable period within which to exercise the
privilege. All his acts (passing the CPA and Bar Exams)
cannot vest in him citizenship as the law gives him the
requirement for election of Filipino citizenship which he
did not comply with. (He was not allowed to take the
Lawyer’s Oath)
The proper period for electing Philippine
citizenship was, in turn, based on the pronouncements of
the Department of State of the US government to the
effect that the election should be made within a
“reasonable time” after attaining the age of majority. The
phrase “reasonable time” has been interpreted to mean
that the election should be made within three (3) years
from reaching the age of majority except when there is
justifiable reason to delay.
The span of 14 years that lapsed from the time
he reached 21 until he finally expressed his intention to
elect Philippine citizenship is clearly way beyond the
contemplation of the requirement of electing “upon
reaching the age of majority”.
(If his parents were not married, he will follow the
citizenship of his mother and he need not elect Philippine
citizenship. )
Caram provision. Those born in the Philippines of foreign
parents who, before the adoption of the 1935
Constitution, had been elected to public office in the
Islands are considered citizens of the Philippines. In
Chiongbian vs. de Leon, the SC held that the right
acquired by virtue of this provision is transmissible.
Re: 1973 Constitution: Those whose mothers are citizens
of the Philippines. Provision is prospective in application;
to benefit only those born on or after January 17, 1973
(date of effectivity of 1973 Constitution).
°*If born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, the
person must elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority. [Within reasonable time=3 years except
when there is justifiable reason to delay]
Procedure for election of Philippine citizenship:
1. Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and
sworn to by the party concerned before any official
authorized to administer oaths.
2. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil Registry
accompanied with the Oath of Allegiance to the
Constitution and the Government of the Philippines [Sec.
1, CA 625].
Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines—Prospective application, consistent with the
1973 Constitution.
The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate
right; during his minority, the child is an alien
[Villahermosa vs. Commissioner of Immigration].
The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing
Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. In
Republic vs. Chule Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13,
2004, it was held that the respondent, who was
concededly an illegitimate child considering that her
Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married, is
not required to comply with said constitutional and
statutory requirements. Being an illegitimate child of
a Filipino mother, respondent became a Filipino upon
birth. Record shows that respondent elected Filipino
citizenship when she reached the age of majority. She
registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18
years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the
participation in election exercises constitute a positive act
of electing Philippine citizenship.
Naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino
citizens through naturalization, generally under CA No.
473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law,
which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No.
2927), and by RA 530.
To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he
possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino
citizen. The decision granting Philippine citizenship
becomes executor only after 2 years from its
promulgation when the court is satisfied that during the
intervening period, the applicant:
1. Has not left the Philippines;
2. Has dedicated himself to a lawful calling or profession;
3. Has not been convicted of any offense or violation of
government promulgated rules; or
4. Has not committed any act prejudicial to the interest of
the nation or contrary to any government announced
policies. [Sec. 1, RA 530] (Bengzon III vs. HRET, may 7, 2001).
Qualifications that must be possessed by an applicant:
1. He must be not less than 21 years of age on the day of
the hearing of petition;
2. He must have resided in the Philippines for a
continuous period of not less than 10 years; may be
reduced to 5 years if:
a. he honorably held office in Government;
b. He established a new industry or introduced a
useful invention in the Philippines;
c. He is married to a Filipino woman;
d. Has been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in
a public or private school not established for the
exclusive instruction of persons of a particular
nationality or race) or in any of the branches of
education or industry for a period of not less than 2
year; or
e. He was born in the Philippines
3. He must be of GMC and believes in the principles
underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have
conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines
in his relation with the constituted government as well as
with the community in which he is living;
4. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not
less than P5,000.00, Philippine currency, or must have
some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful
occupation;
5. He must be able to write and speak English or Spanish
and any of the principal languages; and
6. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age,
in any of the public schools or private schools recognized
by the Bureau of private Schools of the Philippines where
Philippine history, government and civic are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the
entire period of the residence in the Philippines required
of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization as Filipino citizen. (Bengzon III vs. HRET)
Disqualifications:
1. Those opposed to organized government or affiliated
with any association or group of persons who uphold and
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
2. Those defending or teaching the necessity or propriety
of violence, personal assault or assassination for the
success of predominance of their ideas;
3. Polygamists or believers of polygamy;
4. Those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
5. Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable
contagious disease;
6. Those who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or
who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of Filipinos;
7. Those citizens or subjects of nations with whom the
Philippines is at war, during the period of such war;
8. Those citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose
laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become
naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Procedure:
1. Filing of declaration of intention- 1 year prior to the
filing of the Petition with the OSG
Persons exempt from filing declaration of intention :
a. Those born in the Philippines and received their
primary and secondary education in public or private
schools recognized by the Government and not limited
to any race or nationality;
b. Those resided in the Philippines for 30 years or
more before the filing of the petition, and enrolled
their children in elementary and HS recognized by the
government and not limited to any race or nationality;
c. Those widows and minor children of aliens who
have declared their intention to become citizens of the
Philippines and die before they are actually
naturalized.
2. Filing of the Petition, accompanied by the affidavit of 2
credible persons, citizens of the Philippines, who
personally know the petitioner, as character witness;
3. Publication of the Petition in the O.G. or in a newspaper
of general circulation once a week for 3 consecutive
weeks. Failure to comply is fatal. (Po Yo Bi vs. Republic)
4. Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire
proceedings.
5. Hearing of the Petition.
6. Promulgation of the decision.
7. Hearing after 2 years. During the 2-year probation
period, applicant has:
a. Not left the Philippines;
b. Dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling or
profession;
c. Not been convicted of any offense or violation of
rules; and
d. Not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of
the nation or contrary to any government-announced
policies.
8. Oath taking and issuance of Certificate of
Naturalization.
Modes of Naturalization:
1. DIRECT- through:
d. Judicial or administrative proceedings- e.g. RA 9139
The Administrative Naturalization Law of 2000—
grants Philippine citizenship to aliens born and
residing in the Philippines
e. Special act of legislature- this is discretionary on
Congress; usually conferred on an alien who has made
an outstanding contribution to the country
f. Collective change of nationality, as a result of
cessation or subjugation
g. Some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as
nationals of the State where they are born
2. DERIVATIVE-Citizenship conferred on:
a. Wife of naturalized husband;
b. Minor children of naturalized person;
c. Alien woman upon marriage to a national.
Edison So vs. RP, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007—
Naturalization signifies the act of formally adopting a
foreigner into the political body of a nation by clothing
him or her with privileges of a citizen. Under current and
existing laws, there are 3 ways by which an alien may
become a citizen by naturalization:
a. Administrative naturalization pursuant to RA 9139;
b. Judicial naturalization pursuant to CA No. 473, as
amended—covers all aliens regardless of class; and
c. Legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted
by Congress bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.
It is the burden of the applicant to prove not only his own
good moral character but also the good moral character
of his/her witnesses, who must be credible persons. A
naturalization proceeding is nota judicial adversary
proceeding, and the decision rendered therein does not
constitute res judicata. A certificate of naturalization may
be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the
applicant obtained it by misleadintg the court upon any
material fact.
RA 9139—not all aliens may avail of this remedy. Only
native born aliens who have been residing here in the
Philippines all their lives, who never saw any other
country and all along thought that they were Filipinos;
who have demonstrated love and loyalty to the
Philippines, and affinity to the customs and traditions of
the Filipinos.
Effects of Naturalization:
1. Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfully
naturalized; (She need not go through the naturalization
process; if she doesn’t suffer from any disqualification, no
need to prove the qualifications)
2. Minor children born in the Philippines before the
naturalization shall be considered citizens of the
Philippines;
3. Minor children born outside the Philippines who were
residing in the Philippines at the time of naturalization
shall be considered Filipino citizens.
4. Minor children born outside the Philippines before
parent’s naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizens
only during minority, unless they begin to reside
permanently in the Philippines;
5. Child born outside the Philippines after parent’s
naturalization shall be considered Filipino citizen,
provided that he registers as such before any Philippine
consulate within one year after attaining majority age,
and takes his oath of allegiance.
Denaturalization
Grounds:
1. Naturalization certificate was obtained fraudulently or
illegally;
2. Within 5 years, he returns to his native country or to
some foreign country and establishes residence there;
Prima Facie evidence of intent to take up residence:
a. Native country- 1-year stay
b. Foreign country- 2-year stay
3. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of intent;
4. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault of
the parents either by neglecting to support them or by
transferring them to another school;
5. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy;
In Republic vs. Guy, 115 SCRA 244, although misconduct
was committed after the 2-year probationary period,
conviction of perjury and rape was held to be valid ground
for denaturalization.
Effects of Denaturalization:
1. If the ground affects the intrinsic validity of the
proceedings, denaturalization shall divest the wife and
children of their derivative naturalization;
2. If the ground was personal to the denaturalized person,
his wife and children shall retain their Philippine
citizenship.
Policy against Dual Allegiance : “Dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law” [Sec. 5, Art. IV].
°The phrase “dual citizenship” in RA 7160, Section 40(d)
LGC must be understood as referring to “dual allegiance”.
Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do not
fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with dual
allegiance, who must be subject to strict process with
respect to the termination of their status, for candidates
with dual citizenship, it should suffice if, upon filing of
their Certificates of Candidacy (COC), they elect Philippine
citizenship to terminate their status as persons with dual
citizenship considering that their condition is the
unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of different
states.
°By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the
same time, for swear allegiance to the other country of
which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their
status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the point of
view of the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual
has not effectively renounced his foreign citizenship. That
is of no moment.
The filing of a COC suffices to renounce foreign
citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification as
dual citizen. This is so because in the COC, one declares
that he is a Filipino citizen and that he will support and
defend the Constitution and will maintain true faith and
allegiance to the same. Such declaration under oath
operates as an effective renunciation of foreign
citizenship. In this case, the Court adopted the liberal
interpretation of the rule. Manzano is not really
prohibited to run due to dual citizenship. Dual allegiance
is the one prohibited. Dual citizenship referred to under
Section 40 (d) of the Local Government Code refers to
dual allegiance under Section 5 of Article IV of the 1987
Constitution.[Mercado vs. Manzano, May 26, 1999]
Section 5, Article IV—Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical
to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
This section is not a self-executing law. It needs an
implementing law.
Section 40 (d), LGC—Disqualifications.—The following
persons are disqualified from running from any elective
local election:
x x x (d) Those with dual citizenship. x x x.
The provision prohibits dual citizenship but the Supreme
Court ruled that it refers to prohibition on dual allegiance.
Doctrine of INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE: an individual may be
compelled to retain his original nationality even if he has
already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the
second State whose nationality he has acquired.
Calilung vs. Datumanong, G.R. No. 160869, May 11,
2007, what RA 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to
natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual
allegiance. By swearing to the supreme authority of the
Republic, the person implicitly renounces its foreign
citizenship. Plainly, from Section 3, RA 9225 stayed clear
out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the
burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is
dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.
What happens to the other citizenship was not made a
concern of RA 9225.

Instances when a citizen of the Philippines may possess
dual citizenship:
1. Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and
alien fathers if by the laws of their father’s country such
children are citizens of that country;
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s
country the former are considered citizens, unless by their
act or omission they are deemed to have renounced
Philippine citizenship. [Mercado vs. Manzano]
Res judicata in cases involving citizenship:
General Rule: It does not apply to questions of citizenship.
Exception: In Burca vs. Republic, 51 SCRA 248, an
exception to the general rule was recognized provided the
following must be present:
1. A person’s citizenship be raised as a material issue in a
controversy where said person is a party;
2. The Solicitor general or his authorized representative
took active part in the resolution thereof; and
3. The finding on citizenship is affirmed by SC.
Although the GR was set forth in the case of Moy Ya Lim
Yao, the case did not foreclose the weight of prior rulings
on citizenship. It elucidated that reliance may somehow
be placed on these antecedent official findings, though
not really binding, to make the effort easier or simpler.
(Valles vs. COMELEC, 337 SCRA 543, August 9, 2000).
Loss and Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship
A. Loss of citizenship:
1. By naturalization in a foreign country (Frivaldo vs.
COMELEC, 174 SCRA 245) However, this was modified by
RA 9225—An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine
Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship Permanent—
September 15, 2003 which declares the policy of the State
that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
° They may reacquire Philippine citizenship by taking the
oath of allegiance
° Those Filipino citizens who, after the effectivity of RA
9225, become citizens of a foreign country, may reacquire
Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance
° Unmarried child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or
adopted, below 18 years of age, of those who reacquire
their Philippine citizenship upon the effectivity of RA 9225
shall be deemed citizens of the Philippines.
° Those who reacquire or retain Philippine citizenship
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and
be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities
under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
conditions:
o Meet the requirements of RA 9189, The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003, and other existing laws
o For those seeking elective public office and
appointive office, meet the qualifications, make
personal and sworn renunciation, subscribe and swear
to an oath of allegiance to the RP
o For those intending to practice their profession,
apply with the proper authority for a license or permit
to engage in such practice
2. By express renunciation of citizenship
° Conscious, voluntary and intelligent renunciation
Labo vs. COMELEC, 176 SCRA 1, Labo lost Filipino
citizenship because he expressly renounced allegiance
to the Philippines when he applied for Australian
citizenship.
° Express renunciation means a renunciation made known
distinctly and explicitly, and not left to inference or
implication.
° Mere registration of alien in BID and mere possession of
foreign passport do not constitute effective renunciation.
(Valles vs. COMELEC)
° In Willie Yu vs. Defensor-Santiago, 169 SCRA 364,
obtaining a Portuguese passport and signing commercial
documents as a Portuguese were construed as
renunciation of Philippine citizenship.
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining
the age of 21; provided, however, that a Filipino
may not divest himself of Philippine citizenship in this
manner while RP is at war with any country. –an
application of the principle of Indelible Allegiance.—by
virtue of RA 9225
4. By rendering service to or accepting commission in the
armed forces of a foreign country EXCEPT:
° If RP has a defensive and/or offensive pact of alliance
with the said foreign country; and
° The said foreign country maintains armed forces in
Philippine territory with the consent of RP
5. By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization
6. By having been declared by competent authority a
deserter of the Philippine armed forces in time of war
UNLESS subsequently, a plenary pardon or amnesty has
been granted.
B. Reacquisition of citizenship:
1. Under RA 9225, by taking an oath of allegiance
2. By naturalization
3. By repatriation
4. By direct act of Congress
Effect of repatriation:
It allows the person to recover or return to, his original
status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. Thus, the
respondent, a former natural-born Filipino citizen who
lost his Philippine citizenship when he enlisted in the US
Marine Corps, was deemed to have recovered his natural-
born status when he reacquired Filipino citizenship
through repatriation. (Bengzon III vs. HRET, G.R. No.
142840, May 7, 2001)
Joevanie Arellano Tabasa vs. CA, G.R. No. 125793,
August 29, 2006, the only persons entitled to repatriation
under RA 8171 are the following: a) Filipino women who
lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens; and
b) Natural-born Filipinos including their minor children
who lost their Philippine citizenship on account of political
or economic necessity.