You are on page 1of 26

CASE NUMBER 1 ● New York ruling was not brought to the attention of SC authoritatively.

Under the rules of both jurisdictions, admission in any particular case is


In re ​Application of MAX SHOOP for admission to practice law. (Janine) in the discretion of the court. Refusal to admit in any particular case is
Introduction to Civil Law | Malcolm, J. | November 29, 1920 not necessarily conclusive as to the general principles established by
the rules.
Doctrine: ​The Philippines, in deciding cases, adopts the common law principles
subject to the limitation where the old civil law theories of Spain as applied to the Issue: Whether the jurisprudence of the Philippines is based on the principles of
country are well-defined and when the theories and precedents of the the English Common Law as required by the paragraph 2 of the N.Y. rule for
Anglo-American cases are inconsistent with the local customs and institutions. admission to the bar in the said state - YES
Summary: ​Max Shoop is applying for admission to practice law in the Philippines Held:
under Par. 4 of the Rules for the Examination of Candidates for Admission to the On Territory:
Practice of Law. His application shows that he was practicing for more than 5 years ● The Philippine Islands is not an 'organized territory" incorporated into
in the highest court of the State of New York. , there is a basis on comity to satisfy the US under the constitution. The Philippine Islands is not a "foreign
the first requirement since the full phraseology indicates intent to include ALL of the country." In the language of that case it is a "territory of the United
territory of the US. States over which civil government could be established." Porto Rico is
The Philippines, after the change of sovereignty from Spain to the U.S., has adopted also not a foreign territory and that the United States laws covering
the principles of the English Common Law through the present-day form of the "territories," such as the Federal Employers' Liability Act, includes
Anglo-American common law. Porto Rico. Porto Rico, Hawaii, and Alaska are now incorporated,
organized territories of the United States.
Facts: ● "While, like Porto Rico, the Philippine Islands are not incorporated in
● ​ ax Shoop is applying for admission to practice law in the Philippines
M the United States, they clearly are territory of the United States and to
under Par. 4 of the Rules for the Examination of Candidates for the extent that Congress has assumed to legislate for them, they have
Admission to the Practice of Law. His application shows that he was been granted a form of territorial government, and to this extent are a
practicing for more than 5 years in the highest court of the State of New territory."
York. ● Philippine Islands have been held not to be "another country" within
● ​The rule requires that: New York State by comity confers the privilege the meaning of the Cuban Commercial Treaty.
of admission without examination under similar circumstances to ● Therefore, there is a basis on comity to satisfy the first requirement
attorneys admitted to practice in the Philippine Islands. Aside from since the full phraseology indicates intent to include ALL of the
comity, the satisfactory affidavits of applicants must show they have territory of the US.
practiced at least 5 years in any district or circuit or highest court of the On Common Law:
US or territory of it. But admission is still in the discretion of the court. ● Yes. The Philippines, after the change of sovereignty from Spain to the
● ​The rule of New York court permits admission without examination in U.S., has adopted the principles of the English Common Law through
the discretion of the Appellate, such as: the present-day form of the Anglo-American common law.
1. Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five ● The Philippines, in deciding cases, adopts the common law principles
years as a member of the bar in the highest law court in any other subject to the limitation where the old civil law theories of Spain as
state or territory of the American Union or in the District of applied to the country are well-defined and when the theories and
Columbia. precedents of the Anglo-American cases are inconstent with the local
2. Any person admitted to practice and who has practiced five customs and institutions.
years in another country whose jurisprudence is based on the ● This principle is named the Philippine common law.
principles of the English Common Law. Disposition: ​Petition granted.
Case 2 1. Leonard Wood, as Governor-General of the Philippine Islands and head of the
ABUEVA (et al.) vs WOOD | January 14, 1924, ​Separation of Powers executive department of the Philippine Government, is not subject to the control or
supervision of the courts, and second, that Manuel L. Quezon and Manuel Roxas, as
BACKGROUND FACTS ​(of the parties): Chairman of the Independence Commission, are mere agents of the Philippine
Abueva et al. (petitioners) are members of the Independence Commission. The Legislature and cannot be controlled or interfered with by the courts.
creation of the commission was ratified and adopted by the Philippine Legislature on 2. The complaint does not state a cause of action in that there is no provision of law
March 8, 1919. 26 of them are members of the HoR and 4 are Senators of the making it the duty of the Auditor to exhibit the vouchers of expenses of the
Philippine Islands. They all belong to the democratic party. Independence Commission to anybody that may ask for the privilege, and it is a
Respondents are Leonard Wood, the Governor-General of the Philippine well-established rule that ​mandamus will not issue if there is no legal duty to be
Islands, Manuel L. Quezon and Manuel Roxas, Presidents of the Independence enforced;
Commission. Also sued are the Acting Auditor , the Executive Secretary and the 3. That there is no provision of law making it the duty of the Philippine Legislature,
Secretary of the Independence Commission. of the Commission of Independence, and much less of both or either of these
FACTS: respondents, to exhibit the records of the Commission to any person.
By Act No. 2933 the Legislature of the Philippine Islands provided for a 4. That the duties sought to be enforced by the petitioners, granting that they exist,
standing appropriation of one million pesos(P1,000,000) per annum, to defray the are, by nature, discretionary and political
expenses of the Independence Commission, including publicity and all other
expenses in connection with the performance of its duties; that said appropriation ISSUE​​: W/N the Court has jurisdiction compel the respondents, through the
shall be considered as included in the annual appropriation for the Senate and the issuance of the writ of ​mandamus,​ to address the claims of the petitioners. ​(​NO​)
House of Representatives, at the rate of P500,000 for each house;
Abueva et al. (petitioners) averred that as members of the Independence HELD:
Commission they are legally obliged to prevent the funds from being squandered and The Government of the United State in the Philippine Islands is divided under
to prevent any illicit expenses in open contravention of the purposes of the law. its charter or constitution (the Organic Act) into three great, separate, distinct, and
Petitioners have verbally and by writing requested the respondents to permit them to independent departments; the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The duties
examine the vouchers and other documentary proofs relating to the expenditures and of each department are well defined and limited to certain fields of governmental
payments made out of the funds appropriated for the use of the Independence operation. This government is modeled after the Federal or state governments of the
Commission. United States, and possesses a complete governmental organization with executive,
The respondents have denied and continue denying to permit the petitioners legislative, and judicial departments which are exercising functions, as independent
from examining said vouchers and documentary proofs. of each other, as the Federal or state governments.
This is an original action commenced in the Supreme Court by the petitioners
for the writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to exhibit to the petitioners and [WHY THE PETITION IS NOT GRANTED]
to permit them to examine all the vouchers and other documentary proofs in their 1. Section 222 of Act No. 190 provides generally when courts may issue the writ of
possession, showing the disbursements and expenditures made out of the funds of the mandamus​. Said section provides that "when the complaint in an action in a court of
Independence Commission. The petitioners, as members of the Legislature and first instance alleges that any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person
taxpayers. (Transcendental importance ​daw)​ unlawfully neglects the performance of an ​act which the law specially enjoins as a
duty ​resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes the plaintiff
DEFENSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (FOR THE RESPONDENTS) from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled.
It will be noted from said section 222 (and 515) that in order for the courts to
He objects the jurisdiction of the Court over the respondents (Executive issue the extraordinary remedy of ​mandamus​, it must be shown that the persons
department) as requested by the petitioners (Legislative department), upon the mentioned therein have unlawfully neglected "the performance of an act which the
ground that: law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.” There is no
such failure of performing an act to which the law enjoins as a duty resulting to the distinct and independent, and neither is responsible to the other for the performance
Office of the Petitioners. Thus, the writ of ​mandamus​ is inapplicable. of its duties and neither can enforce the performance of the duties of the other.

2. There is no allegation in the petition in the present case that Leonard Wood, as 4. No one department can claim that it has a monopoly of these benign purposes of
Governor-General, has unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law the government.​ Each department has an exclusive field within which it can perform
specially enjoins as a duty upon him resulting from his office, trust, or station. The its part within certain discretionary limits. No other department can claim a right to
only allegation in the complaint relating to the duty or the neglected duty on the part enter these discretionary limits and assume to act there. No presumption of an abuse
of Leonard Wood as Governor-General is, "that the original of said vouchers are in of these discretionary powers by one department will be considered or entertained by
possession another. Such conduct on the part of one department, instead of tending to conserve
The failure of sufficient allegations in the complaint might therefore be the government and the rights of the people, would directly tend to destroy the
sufficient reason for denying the right prayed for. And even though the allegations of confidence of the people in the government
the petition were sufficient, is without authority or jurisdiction to grant the remedy. The reason why the courts will not entertain jurisdiction to control or direct the
***DONE NA DITO Yung nasa baba, in case tanungin lang, kasi yun yung under sa action of the executive or legislative departments of the government, is not that either
syllabus*** of said departments or the officers thereof are above the law, but because the people,
the organization of their government, deemed it wise to impose such duties upon
[RE: Separation of Powers, Kahit read lang to. Basic Polsci lang. Baka lang kasi those departments. If the courts should take jurisdiction for the purpose of
tanungin] controlling the acts of the executive and legislative departments of the government,
3. The question whether or not the courts have jurisdiction to control the official acts then the courts might become the ruling and directing power of the government and
of the executive and legislative departments of the Government has come before the deprive those departments of their legal functions, contrary to the very fundamental
courts a great many times. The courts in the United States have not always been idea of a republican form of government.
uniform in their conclusion. The court exercise no functions of sovereignty. The courts can only pronounce what
Among the numerous cases brought before the courts involving this issue, the case the law is, and what the rights of the parties are. When the courts pronounce an act of
found best-reasoned is that of ​Sutherland vs. Governor​: the executive or legislative department of the government illegal and contrary to the
“There is no very clear and palpable line of distinction between those fundamental laws of the land, it is because the act of the executive department of the
duties of the governor which are political, and those which are to be considered government or the law adopted by the legislative department of the government, falls
miniterial merely; and if we should undertake to draw one, and to declare that in within some of the inhibitions of the fundamental law of the state. ​The wisdom or
all cases falling on one side the line the governor was subject to judicial process, advisability of a particular statute, is not a question for the courts to determine
we will open the doors to an endless train of litigation, and the cases would (THE PETITION IN THIS CASE IS MERELY A POLITICAL QUESTION)
be numerous in which neither the governor nor the parties would be able to
determine whether his conclusion was, under the law, to be final.
RULING:
Under the form of government established by the United States in the The Court has no jurisdiction over the case. The petition is denied.
Philippine Islands, one department of the government has no power or authority to
inquire into the acts of another, which acts are performed within the discretion of the
other department.
By the organic law of the Philippine Islands the Governor-General is invested
with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own
discretion and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his
own conscience. The judicial and executive departments of the government are
Case 3 FACTS:
Cruz vs Pahati (PAO) - Northern Motors, inc. sold an automobile to a china man. Said
April 13, 1956 | Bautista Angelo | The Hybrid System china man then sold it to Belizo. Belizo is a dealer in a secondhand
PETITIONER​​: Jose R. Cruz cars. Belizo then sold the automobile to Cruz.
RESPONDENTS​​: Reynaldo Pahati, et al. - Belizo made an offer to Cruz that he would sell the car.
Summary: However, the car registration was missing.
- Cruz then gave Belizo an authorization letter in order to allow
Northern Motors, inc. sold an automobile to a china man. The china man sold
him to sell the automobile.
the same to Belizo. Belizo is involved in a secondhand car business. Thus, he
- Belizo then sold it to Bulahan.
sold it to Cruz. Belizo then offered Cruz that he would sell the car. Since the
- Pahati bought the automobile from Bulahan via check with the
car certificate was missing, Cruz issued an authorization letter for Belizo
amount of P4, 900.
without knowing that Belizo falsified the said document and made an absolute
- The Manila Police Department impounded said automobile,
sale when Belizo sold it to Bulahan. Bulahan sold the automobile to Pahati.
Pahati cancelled the sale and stopped the payment of the check.
This prompted Cruz to file an action for replevin.
- ​As a result he returned the automobile to Bulahan who in turned
RTC: Bulahan is entitled to the automobile in question , ordered Cruz to return surrended the check for cancellation. He set up a counterclaim for
it. the sum of P2,000 as attorney's fees.
- ​Bulahan claimed he bought the automobile from Belizo, the
SC: Cruz is entitled to the automobile in question.
former didn’t have any knowledge of any defect in the title. Cruz
has acquired by purchase from Belizo. Cruz delivered the
automobile to Belizo for resale. In effect, he gave Belizo apparent
Laws involved:
ownership or authority to sell.
ART. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is- ​Cruz is estopped to deny this ownership. Bulahan claims that
equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been between two innocent parties, he who gave occasion, through his
unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of conduct, to the falsification committed by Belizo, should be the
the same. one to suffer the loss and this one is the plaintiff. Bulahan also set
up a counterclaim for P17,000 as damages and attorney's fees.
Art 1505. Where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and
- ​Cruz then filed an action for replevin.
who does not sell them under authority or with the consent of the owner, the
buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the owner
of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the seller's authority to
ISSUES:
sell.
- ​WON ​Cruz is entitled to the automobile. YES
HELD: T​​he Court declares plaintiff to be entitled to recover the car in
question

Ratio:
- ​Art 559 applied to the facts show that it was Cruz who was
unlawfully deprived thus he may recover it from the person of
possession.
- ​Art 1505 also shows that when goods are sold by a person who is
not the owner, and also who does not have the authority or consent
of the actual owner, the buyer acquires no better title to the goods
than the seller.
- ​t is a fundamental principle of our law of personal property that
no man can be divested of it without his own consent;
consequently, even an honest purchaser, under a defective title,
cannot resist the claim of the true owner. The maxim that 'No man
can transfer a better title than he has himself "obtain in the civil as
well as in the common law."
CASE 4 elections, but not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH Law
but were not candidates for that election.
Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC (2015) • February 22, 2013 - Respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her
capacity as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to Remove
Campaign Materials addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M.
FACTS: Navarra.
o The election officer ordered the tarpaulin’s removal within three
• February 21, 2013 - Petitioners posted two (2) tarpaulins within a (3) days from receipt for being oversized.
private compound housing the San Sebastian Cathedral of Bacolod. o COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size requirement
• Each tarpaulin was approximately six feet (6’) by ten feet (10’) in of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).
size. (They were posted on the front walls of the cathedral within public • February 25, 2013 - Petitioners replied requesting, among others,
view.) o The first tarpaulin contains the message “IBASURA RH Law” that o (1) petitioner Bishop be given a definite ruling by COMELEC
referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or Republic Act No. Law Department regarding the tarpaulin; and o (2) pending this
10354. opinion and the availment of legal remedies, the tarpaulin be allowed to
o The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. remain.
§ This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” and lists • February 27, 2013 - COMELEC Law Department issued a letter
candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team Buhay” with a check mark, or ordering the immediate removal of the tarpaulin; otherwise, it will be
“(Pro-RH) Team Patay” with an “X” mark. constrained to file an election offense against petitioners.
§ The electoral candidates were classified according to their vote on o The letter of COMELEC Law Department was silent on the
the adoption of Republic Act No. 10354, otherwise known as the RH Law. remedies available to petitioners. The letter provides as follows:
§ Those who voted for the passing of the law were classified by
petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” while those who voted against it Dear Bishop Navarra:
form “Team Buhay”:7 It has reached this Office that our Election Officer for this City, Atty. Mavil
Majarucon, had already given you notice on February 22, 2013 as regards
TEAM BUHAY TEAM PATAY the election propaganda material posted on the church vicinity promoting
Estrada, JV Angara, Juan Edgardo for or against the candidates and party list groups with the following names
Honasan, Gregorio Casiño, Teddy and messages, particularly described as follows:
Magsaysay, Mitos Cayetano, Alan Peter
Pimentel, Koko Enrile, Jackie
Trillanes, Antonio Escudero, Francis The three (3)-day notice expired on February 25, 2013.
Villar, Cynthia Hontiveros, Risa
Party List Buhay Legarda, Loren Considering that the above mentioned material is found to be in violation of
Party List Ang Pamilya Party List Gabriela Comelec Resolution No. 9615 promulgated on January 15, 2013 particularly
Party List Akbayan on the size (even with the subsequent division of the said tarpaulin into
Party List Bayan Muna two), as the lawful size for election propaganda material is only two feet
Party List Anak Pawis (2’) by three feet (3’), please order/cause the immediate removal of said
election propaganda material, otherwise, we shall be constrained to file an
• During oral arguments, respondents conceded that the tarpaulin election offense case against you.
was neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. o Petitioners also
conceded that the tarpaulin contains names of candidates for the 2013 We pray that the Catholic Church will be the first institution to help the
Commission on Elections in ensuring the conduct of peaceful, orderly, Article IX-C, Section 2(3) of the Constitution.
honest and credible elections. Thank you and God Bless! [signed] • The use of the word “affecting” in this provision cannot be
ATTY. ESMERALDA AMORA-LADRA interpreted to mean that COMELEC has the exclusive power to decide any
Director IV and all questions that arise during elections. COMELEC’s constitutional
• Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their competencies during elections should not operate to divest this court of its
exercise of free speech, petitioners initiated this case through this petition own jurisdiction.
for certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction and • The more relevant provision for jurisdiction in this case is Article
temporary restraining order. VIII, Section 5(1) of the Constitution. o This provision provides for
• They question respondents’ notice dated February 22, 2013 and this court’s original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition.
letter issued on February 27, 2013. o They pray that: o This should be read alongside the expanded jurisdiction of the
o (1) the petition be given due course; court in Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.
o (2) a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of • Certainly, a breach of the fundamental right of expression by
preliminary injunction be issued restraining respondents from further COMELEC is grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the constitutionality of the
proceeding in enforcing their orders for the removal of the Team Patay notice and letter coming from COMELEC is within this court’s power to
tarpaulin; and review.
o (3) after notice and hearing, a decision be rendered declaring the • During elections, we have the power and the duty to correct any
questioned orders of respondents as unconstitutional and void, and grave abuse of discretion or any act tainted with unconstitutionality on the
permanently restraining respondents from enforcing them or any other part of any government branch or instrumentality. This includes actions by
similar order. the COMELEC.
• After due deliberation, this court, on March 5, 2013, issued a o Furthermore, it is this court’s constitutional mandate to protect the
temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from enforcing the people against government’s infringement of their fundamental rights.
assailed notice and letter, and set oral arguments on March 19, 2013. o This constitutional mandate outweighs the jurisdiction vested with
• March 13, 2013 - Respondents filed their commentarguing that o the COMELEC.
(1) a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of • It will, thus, be manifest injustice if the court does not take
Court filed before this court is not the proper remedy to question the notice jurisdiction over this case.
and letter of respondents; and Did the petitioners violate the principle of exhaustion of administrative
o (2) the tarpaulin is an election propaganda subject to regulation by remedies as the case was not brought first before the COMELEC En Banc
COMELEC pursuant to its mandate under Article IX-C, Section 4 of the or any if its divisions? NO.
Constitution. • The Court held that the argument on exhaustion of administrative
o Hence, respondents claim that the issuances ordering its removal remedies is not proper in this case.
for being oversized are valid and constitutional. • Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is
clear that the controversy is already ripe for adjudication.
ISSUE/ HELD: o Ripeness is the “prerequisite that something had by then been
accomplished or performed by either branch or in this case, organ of
Does the COMELEC have any jurisdiction with its acts threatening government before a court may come into the picture.”
imminent criminal action effectively abridging meaningful political speech? • Petitioners’ exercise of their right to speech, given the message and
NO. their medium, had understandable relevance especially during the elections.
o COMELEC’s letter threatening the filing of the election offense
• It is clear that the subject matter of the controversy is the effect of against petitioners is already an actionable infringement of this right.
COMELEC’s notice and letter on free speech. This does not fall under o The impending threat of criminal litigation is enough to curtail
petitioners’ speech. on the subject matter of the utterance or speech.” o In contrast,
• In the context of this case, exhaustion of their administrative content-neutral regulation includes controls merely on the incidents of the
remedies as COMELEC suggested in their pleadings prolongs the violation speech such as time, place, or manner of the speech.
of their freedom of speech. • The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is content-based.
Does the COMELEC have the competence to limit expressions made by the The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced from the size of its medium.
citizens — who are not candidates — during elections?NO, COMELEC had • Content-based regulation bears a heavy presumption of invalidity,
no legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens and this court has used the clear and present danger rule as measure.
o Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought to be prevented
• Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to must be substantive, ‘extremely serious and the degree of imminence
support their position that they had the power to regulate the tarpaulin. extremely high.’”
However, all of these provisions pertain to candidates and political parties. o “Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present
o Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the government having
political party. COMELEC does not have the authority to regulate the the burden of overcoming the presumed unconstitutionality.”
enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of expression exercised by a • Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents failed to
noncandidate in this case. justify the regulation.
Did the assailed notice and letter for the removal of the tarpaulin violated o There is no compelling and substantial state interest endangered
petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of expression? YES. by the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment of the right
• The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political of freedom of expression.
consequences enjoys a high degree of protection. o There is no reason for the state to minimize the right of
• Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is election non-candidate petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private
propaganda, being petitioners’ way of endorsing candidates who voted property.
against the RH Law and rejecting those who voted for it, holds no water. o The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone else’s
• he Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence the success or constitutional rights.
failure of the named candidates and political parties, this does not Was there a violation of petitioners’ right to property. YES.
necessarily mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid for or • The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily
posted “in return for consideration” by any candidate, political party, or seen by the public, the tarpaulin remains the private property of
party-list group. petitioners.
• By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions are not • Their right to use their property is likewise protected by
included, while sponsored messages are covered. the Constitution.
• The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech o Political o ​Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective
speech refers to speech “both intended and received as a contribution to confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or
public deliberation about some issue,” “fostering informed and civic minded unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because it is
deliberation.” repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal
o On the other hand, commercial speech has been defined as speech protection of the laws.
that does “no more than propose a commercial transaction.” o The Are the tarpaulin and its message considered religious speech? NO.
expression resulting from the content of the tarpaulin is, however, definitely • The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon by
political speech. petitioners are not binding upon this court.
Was the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a content-based or • The position of the Catholic religion in the Philippines as
content-neutral regulation? Content-based regulation regards the RH Law does not suffice to qualify the posting by one
• Content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions “based of its members of a tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such
Law” referring to the Reproductive Health Law of 2012 or • February 22, 2013 - Respondent Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, in her
Republic Act No. 10354​. capacity as Election Officer of Bacolod City, issued a Notice to
o The second tarpaulin is the subject of the present case. Remove Campaign Materials​8 ​addressed to petitioner Most Rev. Bishop
§ ​This tarpaulin contains the heading “Conscience Vote” Vicente M. Navarra.
and lists candidates as either “(Anti-RH) Team o The election officer ordered the tarpaulin’s removal within
Buhay” with a check mark, or “(Pro-RH) Team three (3) days from receipt for being oversized.
Patay” with an “X” mark. o COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 provides for the size
§ The electoral candidates were classified according to requirement of two feet (2’) by three feet (3’).
their vote on the adoption of Republic Act No. • February 25, 2013 - Petitioners replied​ ​requesting, among others, that
10354, otherwise known as the RH Law. O ​(1) petitioner Bishop be given a definite ruling by COMELEC
§ Those who voted for the passing of the law were Law Department regarding the tarpaulin; and
classified by petitioners as comprising “Team Patay,” o (2) pending this opinion and the availment of legal remedies,
while those who voted against it form “Team the tarpaulin be allowed to remain.
Buhay”:​7 • February 27, 2013 - COMELEC Law Department issued a letter
ordering the immediate removal of the tarpaulin; otherwise, it will be
TEAM BUHAY TEAM PATAY constrained to file an election offense against petitioners.
o The letter of COMELEC Law Department was silent on the
Estrada, JV Angara, Juan Edgardo remedies available to petitioners. The letter provides as
Honasan, Gregorio Casino, Teddy follows:
Magsaysay. Mitos Cayetano, Alan Peter
Dear Bishop Navarra:
Pimentel, Koko Enrile, Jackie
It has reached this Office that our Election Officer for this
Trillanes, Antonio Escudero, Francis City, Atty. Mavil Majarucon, had already given you notice on
Villar, Cynthia Hontiveros, Risa February 22, 2013 as regards the election propaganda material
Party List Buhay Legarda, Loren posted on the church vicinity promoting for or against the
candidates and party list groups with the following names and
Party List Ang Pamilya Part List Gabriela
messages, particularly described as follows:
Party List Akbayan
Party List Bayan Muna
Part List Anakpawis The three (3)-day notice expired on February 25, 2013.

Considering that the above mentioned material is found to be


in violation of Comelec Resolution No. 9615 promulgated on
• ​During oral arguments, respondents conceded that the tarpaulin was January 15, 2013 particularly on the size (even with the
neither sponsored nor paid for by any candidate. ​o Petitioners also subsequent division of the said tarpaulin into two), as the
conceded that the tarpaulin contains names of candidates for the 2013 lawful size for election propaganda material is only two feet
elections, but not of politicians who helped in the passage of the RH (2’) by three feet (3’), please order/cause the immediate
Law but were not candidates for that election. removal of said election propaganda material, otherwise, we
shall be constrained to file an election offense case against you.
Does the COMELEC have any jurisdiction with its acts threatening imminent
We pray that the Catholic Church will be the first institution criminal action effectively abridging meaningful​ ​political speech? NO.
to help the Commission on Elections in ensuring the conduct of peaceful,
orderly, honest and credible elections. Thank you and God Bless! • It is clear that the subject matter of the controversy is the effect of
COMELEC’s notice and letter on free speech. This does not fall under
[signed] Article IX-C, Section 2(3) of the Constitution.
ATTY. ESMERALDA AMORA-LADRA • The use of the word “affecting” in this provision cannot be interpreted
Director IV to mean that COMELEC has the exclusive power to decide any and all
• Concerned about the imminent threat of prosecution for their exercise questions that arise during elections. COMELEC’s constitutional
of free speech, petitioners initiated this case through this petition for competencies during elections should not operate to divest this court of
certiorari and prohibition with application for preliminary injunction its own jurisdiction.
and temporary restraining order. • The more relevant provision for jurisdiction in this case is Article
• They question respondents’ notice dated February 22, 2013 and letter VIII, Section 5(1) of the Constitution.
issued on February 27, 2013. ​o This provision provides for this court’s original
​o They pray that: jurisdiction over petitions for ​certiorari​ and prohibition.
o (1) the petition be given due course; o This should be read alongside the expanded jurisdiction of the
o (2) a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of court in Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution.
preliminary injunction be issued restraining respondents from • Certainly, a breach of the fundamental right of expression by
further proceeding in enforcing their orders for the removal of COMELEC is grave abuse of discretion. Thus, the constitutionality of
the Team Patay tarpaulin; and the notice and letter coming from COMELEC is within this court’s
o (3) after notice and hearing, a decision be rendered declaring power to review.
the questioned orders of respondents as unconstitutional and • During elections, we have the power and the duty to correct any grave
void, and permanently restraining respondents from enforcing abuse of discretion or any act tainted with unconstitutionality on the
them or any other similar order. part of any government branch or instrumentality. This includes
• After due deliberation, this court, on March 5, 2013, issued a actions by the COMELEC.
temporary restraining order enjoining respondents from enforcing the o Furthermore, it is this court’s constitutional mandate to protect
assailed notice and letter, and set oral arguments on March 19, 2013. the people against government’s infringement of their
• March 13, 2013 - Respondents filed their comment arguing that fundamental rights.
​o (1) a petition for ​certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the o This constitutional mandate outweighs the jurisdiction vested
Rules of Court filed before this court is not the proper remedy with the COMELEC.
to question the notice and letter of respondents; and
• It will, thus, be manifest injustice if the court does not take
o (2) the tarpaulin is an election propaganda subject to
jurisdiction over this case.
regulation by COMELEC pursuant to its mandate under
Article IX-C, Section 4 of the Constitution. Did the petitioners violate the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies as
o Hence, respondents claim that the issuances ordering its the case was not brought first before ​the COMELEC En Banc or any if its
removal for being oversized are valid and constitutional. divisions? NO.

ISSUE/ HELD:
• ​The Court held that the argument on exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not proper in this case.
• Despite the alleged non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, it is against the RH Law and rejecting those who voted for it, holds no
clear that the controversy is already ripe for adjudication. water.
o Ripeness is the “prerequisite that something had by then been • he Court held that while the tarpaulin may influence the success or
accomplished or performed by either branch or in this case, failure of the named candidates and political parties, this does not
organ of government before a court may come into the necessarily mean it is election propaganda. The tarpaulin was not paid
picture.” for or posted “in return for consideration” by any candidate, political
• Petitioners’ exercise of their right to speech, given the message and party, or party-list group.
their medium, had understandable relevance especially during the • By interpreting the law, it is clear that personal opinions are not
elections. included, while sponsored messages are covered.
o COMELEC’s letter threatening the filing of the election • ​The content of the tarpaulin is a political speech
offense against petitioners is already an actionable o Political speech refers to speech “both intended and
infringement of this right. received as a contribution to public deliberation about some
o The impending threat of criminal litigation is enough to curtail issue,” “fostering informed and civic minded deliberation.”
petitioners’ speech. o On the other hand, commercial speech has been defined as
• In the context of this case, exhaustion of their administrative remedies speech that does “no more than propose a commercial
as COMELEC suggested in their pleadings prolongs the violation of transaction.” ​o The expression resulting from the content of
their freedom of speech. the tarpaulin is, however, definitely political speech.

Does the COMELEC have the competence to limit expressions made by the Was the order for removal of the tarpaulin is a content-based or content-neutral
citizens — who are not candidates — during e​ lections?NO, COMELEC had no regulation? Content-based regulation
legal basis to regulate expressions made by private citizens
• Content-based restraint or censorship refers to restrictions “based on
• Respondents cite the Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence to support the subject matter of the utterance or speech.”
their position that they had the power to regulate the tarpaulin. o In contrast, content-neutral regulation includes controls merely
However, all of these provisions pertain to candidates and political on the incidents of the speech such as time, place, or manner
parties. of the speech.
o Petitioners are not candidates. Neither do they belong to any • The Court held that the regulation involved at bar is content-based.
political party. COMELEC does not have the authority to The tarpaulin content is not easily divorced from the size of its
regulate the enjoyment of the preferred right to freedom of medium.
expression exercised by a noncandidate in this case. • Content-based regulation bears a heavy presumption of invalidity, and
this court has used the clear and present danger rule as measure.
Did the assailed notice and letter for the removal of the tarpaulin violated o Under this rule, “the evil consequences sought to be prevented
petitioners’ fundamental right to freedom of​ e​ xpression? YES. must be substantive, ‘extremely serious and the degree of
imminence extremely high.’”
• The Court held that every citizen’s expression with political o “Only when the challenged act has overcome the clear and
consequences enjoys a high degree of protection. present danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the
• Moreover, the respondent’s argument that the tarpaulin is election government having the burden of overcoming the presumed
propaganda, being petitioners’ way of endorsing candidates who voted unconstitutionality.”
• Even with the clear and present danger test, respondents failed to
justify the regulation​​.
o There is no compelling and substantial ​state interest endangered
by the posting of the tarpaulin as to justify curtailment of the
right of freedom of expression. Article 1
o There is no reason for the state to minimize the right of
non-candidate petitioners to post the tarpaulin in their private Historical Evolution of Philippine Law – An overview
property. Various periods of political development the Philippines has experienced:
o The size of the tarpaulin does not affect anyone else’s - ​The Pre-Spanish Era
constitutional rights. Refers to the time before Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521) which was the
discovery of the Philippines to the western world. Before the Christian era,
Was there a violation of petitioners’ right to property. YES. Indonesian and Malay migrants came to the Philippines to set up barangays.
Each of this Barangay was independent and self-sustaining political unit. The
• ​The Court held that even though the tarpaulin is readily seen by the barangays were headed by a datu. Barangay groupings were headed by a higher
public, the tarpaulin remains the private property of petitioners. chief named a Rajah and would consult lesser chiefs for laws. These laws were
• Their right to use their property is likewise protected by the handed down to the next generation by word of mouth. Only the Code of
Constitution. Kalantiaw and the Maragtas Code are the only pre-Spanish written laws that
are now relics. Cases were settled through mediation and compromise. If the
o Any regulation, therefore, which operates as an effective parties could not agree, a public hearing was held. The dispute settlement was
confiscation of private property or constitutes an arbitrary or coursed through a mechanism called Katarungang Pambarangay (RA 7160)
unreasonable infringement of property rights is void, because which compels residents of the barangay to enter first into conciliation before
it is repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process the Lupong Tagapamayapa prior to filing of an action in court.
and equal protection of the laws.
- ​The Spanish Regime
Are the tarpaulin and its message considered religious speech? NO.
Spain ruled the Philippines through the Council of Indies in Spain. The King of
Spain exercised legislative powers over the colonies. Laws with general
• ​The Court held that the church doctrines relied upon by petitioners are
application affect the PH (e.g. Fuero Jusgo). Spain also extended the application
not binding upon this court.
of new codes and statutes such as the Civil Code (1889) and Penal Code (1888).
• The position of the Catholic religion in the Philippines as regards the
On 1583, the Royal Audienca. During the fight for PH independence against the
RH Law does not suffice to qualify the posting by one of its members
Spain, the Malolos Constitution established the short-lived PH republic.
of a tarpaulin as religious speech solely on such basis.
• The enumeration of candidates on the face of the tarpaulin precludes
- ​American Period
any doubt as to its nature as speech with political consequences and
Started with the cession of the PH by the Spanish Crown to the United
not religious speech.
States through the Treaty of Paris. The United States Constitution was
not extended to the PH. These acts that defined PH government were:
Instruction of Pres. McKinley to the PH Commission, The Philippine
Bill, The Philippine Autonomy Act, and the Philippine Independent
Act.
· Military Government (Military governor exercised all the
powers)
· Civil Government (Transferring the executive power to the
Chairman of the Philippine Commission)
· Commonwealth Government (Tydings-McDuffie Law was a
ten-year transition period for independence)
- ​Japanese Occupation (Three-year military rule, a constitution was drafted in
1943 which led to a Japanese-sponsored republic)

- ​Philippine Republic (Inauguration as a Republic on July 4, 1946)

· Martial Law Period


1973 Constitution established the merging of executive and
legislative powers.
· Post EDSA
Junked the Marcos Constitution (I.e. The SC was reorganized, the
legislature was dismissed, local government officials were replaced,
and the government was reorganized).

Case Number 5 (Andrew)

Angara vs. Electoral Tribunal (1936)


SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may
be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the
political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-list • The issue hinges on the interpretation of section 4 of Article VI (present day Sec.
system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be 17) of the Constitution, “sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns,
its Chairman. and qualifications”(ERQ).6
The Nature of the Electoral Commission
FACTS: • The Electoral Commission is a constitutional organ, created for a specific purpose,
• In the Sep. 1935 elections, Jose Angara, Pedro Ynsua, Miguel Castillo and namely to determine all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
Dionisio Mayor were candidates voted for the position of member of the National the members of the National Assembly. o In the deliberations, it was made clear that
Assembly in the first district of Tayabas. if the election and qualification of a member was uncontested, the ElecCom has no
• Angara was proclaimed member-elect for the said district. He thereafter took his jurisdiction as there is nothing to “judge”.
oath in office. • The transfer of the power of determining the election, returns and qualifications of
• On Dec. 3, 1935, the National Assembly passed Resolution No. 8 saying that those the members of the legislature long lodged in the legislative body, to an independent,
who as of Dec. 3 had not received an election protest, were approved and confirmed impartial and non-partisan tribunal, is by no means a mere experiment in the science
as members. (Translated from Spanish, huhu). of government.
• On Dec. 8, a Motion of Protest was filed by Ynsua against the election of the o The purpose of the ConCom was to transfer the powers previously exercised by the
Angara with the Electoral Commission (present day equivalent is the Electoral legislature in matters pertaining to contested elections of its members, to an
Tribunal). independent and impartial tribunal.
• Angara countered this with a Motion to Dismiss the Protest. He alleges that: o o This was designed to remedy certain evils of which the framers of our Constitution
Resolution No. 8 was adopted in the legitimate exercise of the power of the National were cognizant. That is to avoid partisan considerations in determining legislative
Assembly to prescribe the period during which protests against the election of its contests.
members should be presented o The protest in question was filed out of the o Thus, a composite body in which both the majority and minority parties are equally
prescribed period. represented to off-set partisan influence in its deliberations was created, and further
• The MTD was denied by the ElecCom. endowed with judicial temper by including in its membership three justices of the
• On Dec. 9, the ElecCom issued Resolution no. 9 fixing the said date as the last day Supreme Court.
for the filing of protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members of • The grant of power to the ElecCom to judge all contests regarding ERQ is intended
the National Assembly, notwithstanding the previous confirmation by the National to be as complete and unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature.
Assembly. o So, merong confirmation of Angara already by Dec. 3 since no election o The express lodging of that power in the ElecCom is an implied denial of the
protest was filed against him then, but the ElecCom said you can file until Dec. 9. exercise of that power by the National Assembly. o And this is as effective a
restriction upon the legislative power as an express prohibition in the Constitution.
o The power to regulate on the part of the National Assembly in procedural matters
will inevitably lead to the ultimate control by the Assembly of the entire proceedings
ISSUES/HELD of the ElecCom, and, by indirection, to the entire abrogation of the constitutional
Did the Electoral Commission properly entertain the election protest, despite grant.
the previous confirmation of Angara by the National Assembly? YES o It is obvious that this result should not be permitted.
• The creation of the ElecCom carried with it ex necesitate rei the power regulative in
• Electoral Commission Wins! The Dec. 3 resolution of the National Assembly of character to limit the time with which protests entrusted to its cognizance should be
confirming the election of the members of the National Assembly against whom no filed.
protest had thus far been filed, could not and did not deprive the Electoral o Thus, the incidental power to promulgate such rules necessary for the proper
Commission of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of election protests filed within the exercise of its exclusive power to judge all contests relating to the election, returns
time that might be set by its own rules. and qualifications of members of the National Assembly, must be deemed by
necessary implication to have been lodged also in the ElecCom.
• Resolution No. 8 of the National Assembly confirming the election of members
against whom no protests had been filed at the time of its passage on December 3,
1935, cannot be construed as a limitation upon the time for the initiation of election
contests.
o Confirmation by the National Assembly of the returns of its members against
whose election no protests have been filed is, to all legal purposes, unnecessary.
o The confirmation of the election of any member is not required by the Constitution
before he can discharge his duties as such member.
o Certification by the proper provincial board of canvassers is sufficient to entitle a
member-elect to a seat in the national Assembly and to render him eligible to any
office in said body.

In short:
• Before, each House of the legislature was the sole judge of the ERQ of its
members.
o Sec. 4, Art. VI, repealed both Sec. 18 of the Jones Law and Sec. 478 of Act No.
3387, which gave each House of the legislature, the power to be the sole judge of the
ERQ of its members and prescribed the manner of filing of contests.
• The 1935 Constitution transferred this authority to the ElecCom. o The ElecCom is
an independent constitutional creation with specific powers and functions, and is the
sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of
members
o That such transfer of power from the legislature to the ElecCom was: § Full, clear
and complete, and § Carried with it ex necesitate rei the implied power to prescribe
the rules and regulations as to the time and manner of filing protests.
• The avowed purpose in creating the ElecCom was to have an independent
constitutional organ pass upon all contests relating to the ERQ of the National
Assembly devoid of partisan influence or consideration.
o This object would be frustrated if the National Assembly were to retain the power
to prescribe rules and regulations regarding the manner of conducting said contests.
• Moreover, confirmation by the National Assembly of the election, contested or not,
is not essential before such member-elect may discharge the duties and enjoy the
privileges of a member of the National Assembly. Jaigest – PoliRev - 54
o Thus, things like Resolution 8 are unnecessary.
• Therefore, confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of any member
against whom no protest had been filed prior to said confirmation, does not and
cannot deprive the ElecCom of its incidental power to prescribe the time within
which protests against the election of any member of the National Assembly should
be filed.
\

ARTICLE 3

Lost in Translation: Oral Advocacy in a Land without Binding Precedent


By Professor Sabrina De Fabritiis (Janine)

Summary of Abstract:
- Robert Frost – “Poetry is what gets lost in translation.”
- In the world of advocacy, persuation is what gets lost in translation
- Article examines the distinctions in common law and civil law methods of
reasoning
- Analyzes why, in form and in substance, traditional common law oral 6. From this arose the doctrine of “stare decisis et quieta non movere” (to stand by
argument methods are neither effective nor persuasive when presented in a civil things decided and not disturb settled law)
law jurisdiction 7. Stare decisis commands judges to apply the law as it has been set out in a prior
- Although they share similar objectives, arguing based on ​stare decisis i​ s case when a higher, or sometimes equal, court made the prior decision
incompatible in civil law courts 8. It requires that the new case be the same or substantially the same as the
- Article explores how to transfer common law advocacy skills to create an precedent
effective civil law oral argument 9. To determine if it is the same or substantially the same, court must consider the
Introduction context of the facts and issues in the prior decision
- Students and practitioners trained in common law systems often present oral 10. If they are essentially different, doctrine will not apply
arguments in identical fashion in both common and civil law courts because: 11. Present day common law relies on stare decisis to maintain consistency when
o ​Most law students learn solely common law legal reasoning judges are filling in the gaps of law
[“case book method”]: 12. Ambiguity may be cleared up when a case is decided on a similar issue
o ​[They] are expected to brief cases, discuss judicial opinions, 13. Common law allows a court to exercise great deal of flexibility when deciding
and deduce governing legal norms w/c earlier cases are sufficiently similar w/ the case before it
- Statutory interpretation and precedent are central to the very meaning and 14. Common law has grown and developed in the hands of judges, who reason
concept of the law in the common law legal system solely from case to case and thereby build a body of law binding subsequent
- On the other hand, the language of the Code and writing of scholars comprise judges
the core of civil law system 15. When a court interprets or applies a statute to a dispute, the court’s decision
- Similar social objectives: individualism, liberalism and personal rights becomes part of the body of law on the topic the statute addresses
- Common law theory of precedent are incompatible with the legal method 16. To understand what the statute means, a lawyer must read precedent that has
used to decide cases in civil law courts interpreted and applied such statutory provision
- Thus, traditional common law advocacy style is not suitable for a civil law
argument II. Civil Law Origins
- Article examines the distinctions between the two methods of legal reasoning - Originated in Roman Law
and addresses why the form and substance is neither effective nor persuasive - Codified in the Corpus Juris Civilis of Emperor Justinian, subsequently
when presented in a civil law jurisdiction developing on continental Europe
- 19​th​ Century – principal states of Western Europe adopted civil codes
I. Common Law Origins - Today, it is the dominant legal tradition in the world
1. Evolved in England beginning 11​th Century and traveled through conquests and - Exclusive sources of civil law: written constitutions, codes, specific statutes
colonization to US, Australia, Canada and countries in Africa and Asia or decrees, and international treaties.
2. “Precedent” – means a prior decision, or a consistent group of decisions which - Civil law is highly systematized and structured
represent a model to be followed by subsequent decisions; refers to the binding - relies on declarations of broad, general principles and often ignores details
decisions of higher courts of the same jurisdiction - There are five basic codes typically found in a civil law jurisdiction:
3. In US – hierarchical relationship exists among the court which along w/ other o ​the civil code
features, created the basis for precedent and its binding value o ​the commercial code,
4. Common law – formally bound by prior reported rulings on specific disputes o ​the code of civil procedure, the penal code, and
decided by US SC/ higher courts w/in the state or federal jurisdiction o ​the code of criminal procedure
5. As the common law system grew, it needed legitimacy and predictability in - Civil codes provide the core of the law
decision-making. - General principles are systematically and exhaustively exposed in the codes
while particular statutes complete them
- However, civil law statutes do not provide specific definitions; instead, they - In theory, even if the highest court has already spoken on a question and
state principles in broad, general phrases (not explained precisely). indicated a clear view of its proper resolution, the lowest court in the jurisdiction
- This structure is in part the result of a desire for a legal system that was can decide differently
simple, nontechnical, and straightforward–one in which the professionalism and - This power held by the lower court demonstrates there is no concept similar
the tendency towards technicality and complication commonly blamed on to binding precedent or stare decisis in civil law
lawyers would/could be avoided - Prior decisions, however, are not without any respect in the civil law system;
- One way to accomplish this was by stating the law clearly and in a the decisions may have persuasive value to later courts
straightforward fashion so ordinary citizens could read it and understand their - Doctrine of jurisprudence constant - a series of decisions forming a constant
rights and obligations without having to consult lawyers or go to court stream of uniform and homogenous rulings that have the same reasoning, the
- civil law judge applies the law; he does not create it due to the function of a doctrine affords the cases considerable persuasive authority and justifies,
civil law judge as a civil servant without requiring, the court in abstaining from new inquiry because of its faith
- The legal scholars are the real protagonist of the civil law tradition as they are in the prior decisions
the creative force behind the law, by publishing commentaries on the status of - Civil law courts long and continuous use and influence of cases indicates the
the law and how it should be interpreted and applied current decision is in harmony with the code; deviation from a series of cases as
- Scholarly texts - not a primary source of law, but they are doctrinally opposed to a single case would impair the values protected by those earlier
definitive and indispensable to the systematic and comprehensive understanding cases.
of the code; they mold the civil law tradition by using the formal sources of the - However, this repetition of interpretation does not create or change the law
law to create a model of the legal system through books and articles but merely reinforces the rationale of the earlier decisions
- Legislators and judges accept their ideas and use the concepts developed. As a
result, the doctrine they establish carries immense authority III. Advocacy
- Role of judges - to apply the applicable Code provisions to the case before - the process of trying to convince your audience through the technique of
them persuasion
- As such, a civil law judge may sometimes find himself in a position where he - Oral advocacy - an interactive effort that requires a well-organized
is required to resort to a rulemaking method in order to perform his duty to presentation of an advocate’s case as well as spontaneous responses to the
decide the case judge’s questions
o ​Ex. judge may be required to formulate concepts in cases - Oral argument - presents a valuable opportunity to convince the courts of the
where the Code refers the judge to use his judgment: “fault,” merits of your case and to dispel any doubts a judge may have after reading the
“good faith,” “public order,” or “public policy.” briefs.
- The judge renders a decision where he would propose if he were a legislator - In both common and civil law jurisdictions, advocates should reduce their
by using his assessment of social, economic and moral factors following the cases to the bare essence
guiding ideas or values pervading the Code and the legal system as a whole - They should have a central theme that will approach from different angles:
- Thus, he “creates” a law only to the extent that the judge makes concrete what facts, law, intent and policy
was a general and abstract rule in the code - Traditional oral argument structure is divided into four component parts:
- The judge's decision, however, does not become a source of law, nor do other o ​Opening statement
judges have to follow that decision. o ​Road map
- In civil law, judicial decisions are not a source of law for it would violate the o ​Body of the argument
convention against judicial lawmaking if decisions of courts were binding on o ​Conclusion
subsequent courts - opening statement - the advocate should cordially greet the judges, and
- Orthodox view - no court is bound by the decision of any other court. introduce him or herself as counsel as well as co-counsel where appropriate;
advocate should briefly set forth the procedural posture of the case; what the
advocate is asking the court to do; affirm, reverse, remand; an advocate should driven home by showing how close their facts are to those of the case presently
ask if the court would like a brief statement of the facts before the court.
- Road map - advocate should give the court a concise outline or road map of - Precedents play a central role in the body of common-law argument
the issues she will argue to support her position; lets the judges know the order - Judges endeavor to fit a case into the body of precedent by taking into account
in which the advocate has organized the issues; advocate should state the points the rationale behind the rules
of her road map in an affirmative and persuasive manner. - Process involves 3 steps of judicial reasoning:
- always well-advised to present her strongest points first in the argument. This o ​(1) recognition of a similarity between cases;
will not only attract the court’s attention, but also ensure that these points are not o ​(2) interpretation of a rule fashioned from the material facts
omitted if time runs out of the first case; and
- Body of argument – advocate should anticipate questions, and should directly o ​(3) application of the rule to the second case.
respond to the questions asked; if evasive, may provoke the judge to repeat the - Appeal to precedent – often persuasive; ratio: like cases must be treated alike
questions or badger the advocate if a legal system is to be even minimally fair; essentially reasoning by analogy;
- Rebuttal – when appropriate, advocate should not reserve more than 3 urges that the court give weight to a particular prior result regardless of whether
minutes, perhaps even less for sur-rebuttal; not the time to raise points he that court believes it to be correct or believes it valuable in any way to rely on
neglected to make in her main argument; advocate should use the time in that prior result
response to the most injurious points of the opponent’s argument - If a court decides to overrule a precedent, it will generally only do so for good
- Conclusion - should briefly summarize the important points of the advocate’s reasons that outweigh the policies of certainty, predictability, and fairness
argument in light of the theme she set forth at the beginning of the argument; underlying stare decisis
where appropriate, the advocate should ask the court if it has any further
questions before thanking the judges and sitting down. B. Oral Advocacy in Civil Law Jurisdiction – The Body of the Argument
- In the civil law the dominant style of reasoning is deductive: courts apply
A. Oral Advocacy in Common Law Jurisdiction – The Body of the Argument general legal principals to specific situations by reasoning with guidance from
- In common law, dominant style of reasoning is inductive: scholars.
o ​Courts interpret and synthesize earlier court decisions to - civil law advocate must build the body of her argument around legal
create general legal principles and then apply those principles principles tracing their history, identify their function, determining their domain
to the facts of the case before them of application, and explaining their effects in terms of rights and obligations.
o ​common law advocate must focus on fact patterns - Civil law requires the judge to search for legal concepts in the Civil Code
o ​she must analyze cases presenting similar but not identical delineating a pattern of competing interests closely resembling the interests
facts. She must, from those cases, extract the specific rules, pressing for recognition in the instant case.
and then through deduction, determine the often narrow scope - Where an advocate, arguing in a civil law jurisdiction, argues in the form of
of each rule, and sometimes proposes new rules to cover facts an appeal to precedent, she is asking the civil law judge to do the exact opposite
that have not yet presented themselves. of what he is bound to do – adhere as closely as possible to the code.
- Body of argument - must be organized with appropriate attention to the facts - no legal precept in the Code upon which the judge may fashion a rule to apply
and the law. Otherwise, he runs the risk of an adverse decision to the advocate’s case, the advocate should still refrain from using an appeal to
- Advocate must fashion the argument from a close study of prior cases precedent
- It is usually enough for an advocate referencing a particular case to make a - Doing so would essentially be requesting the creation of amorphous case law,
general statement of what the case holds and why the court should apply its a concept which is inconsistent with the guiding values of the Civil Code and,
reasoning to the present case, or in the alternative decline to do so. In some therefore, incompatible with the civil law.
instances, however, controlling cases and those particularly on point should be
IV. Transferring Common Law Advocacy Skills to Create - In the civil law, legal scholars are the creative force behind the law. Although
an Effective Civil Law Argument scholarly texts are not a primary source of law, they are doctrinally definitive
- Transferring common law advocacy skills to create an effective civil law and indispensable to the systematic and comprehensive understanding of the
argument requires: code
o ​(1) an understanding of the purpose of the oral argument, as - because scholars’ commentaries are fundamental as to the status of the law
well as the governing rules of the court or tribunal hearing the and how it should be interpreted and applied, an advocate must, in structuring
argument; her argument, use these scholarly doctrines, not merely as research tools, but as
o ​(2) an appreciation for the role of the judge hearing the sources which provide support for her argument
argument; - a civil law advocate should weave doctrine into her argument to persuade the
o ​(3) a broader grasp of what the common law considers court that a proper application of the governing Code section mandates a ruling
secondary authority; and in her favor
o ​(4) an awareness of the applicability of non-binding
precedent. Conclusion
- An advocate appearing before a court or tribunal in a civil law jurisdiction
needs to shift her focus to make the applicable code and treaty provisions central - An advocate, trained in a common law jurisdiction, cannot present her
to the body of her argument. argument in form and substance, in an identical fashion in both common law and
- While the advocate is not wholly precluded from making reference to the civil law courts
decisions of other courts she must understand that the court is not bound by the - Although the common law and civil law legal traditions share similar social
prior ruling. objectives, the common law corner stone of stare decisis and theory of
- Argument must also find support in scholarly doctrines and notions of precedent, are incompatible with the Code based method applied by civil law
customary international law, consisting “of rules of law derived from the courts.
consistent conduct of States acting out of the belief that the law required them to - Accordingly, an advocate cannot structure the body of her argument as an
act that way. appeal to precedent. Rather, she must begin with a strong understanding of the
- the advocate should respond to the question in a way that allows the court to substance and structure that comprise a common law argument and then transfer
adhere to existing jurisprudence, legal science, and scholarly developed doctrine those skills to create a persuasive civil law argument
and in so doing apply the relevant Code provisions to the case before it. - Through an appreciation for the role of the judge hearing the argument, and
- In a civil law system, judicial decisions are not a source of law through an appreciation for the role of scholars in the civil law system, an
- a civil law judge applies the law; he does not create it. advocate will be able to effectively craft a persuasive civil law argument.
- A civil law judge applies general legal principals to specific situations by
reasoning with guidance from scholars.
- An advocate appearing before a civil law judge must present an argument that
requires the application of the law, as contrasted from an argument that requires
interpretation or creation of new law.
- As a result, the civil law advocate must build the body of her argument CASE NUMBER 9
around legal principles tracing their history, identify their function, determining
their domain of application, and explaining their effects in terms of rights and
obligations
- An advocate, appearing before a civil law court, must appreciate the role
scholarship, what at common law is considered a secondary source, will play in
her argument.
SUMMARY:
Binay, Jr. was charged with administrative and criminal cases in connection
with the allegation that he is involved in anomalous activities attending the
procurement and construction phases of the Makati Parking Building
project, committed during his previous and present terms as City Mayor of
Makati. Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held administratively liable
since Phases I and II were undertaken before he was elected Mayor of
Makati and Phases III to V transpired during his first term. His re-election
as mayor for a second term effectively condoned his administrative liability
therefor, if any, thus rendering the administrative cases against him moot
and academic. The Ombudsman issued an order placing Binay, et al. under
preventive suspension. The CA granted Binay’s prayer for TRO enjoining
the implementation of the preventive suspension order.

Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in issuing the TRO and
the WPI enjoining the implementation of the preventive suspension order
against Binay, Jr. based on the condonation doctrine? The Court held No,
the CA’s resolutions were all hinged on cases enunciating the condonation
doctrine. By merely following settled precedents on the condonation
doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained “good law”, it cannot be
concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion based on its
legal attribution. However, the condonation doctrine is simply inconsistent
and permissible under the auspices of the present Constitution which
explicitly mandates that public office is a public trust and that public
officials shall be accountable to the people at all times. Election is not a
mode of condoning an administrative offense.

However, the Court’s abandonment of the condonation doctrine should be


prospective in application. It should be, as a general rule, recognized as
“good law” prior to its abandonment. Consequently, the people’s reliance
thereupon should be respected.

Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Alyssa)


G.R. Nos. 217126-27 FACTS:
November 10, 2015 | PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
This is a petition filed by petitioner Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity as the
Ombudsman (Ombudsman), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
assailing: (a) the Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) which granted private Secretary Roxas caused the implementation of the preventive suspension order
respondent Jejomar Binay, Jr’s request for the issuance of a temporary restraining through the DILG National Capital Region - Regional Director, Renato L. Brion,
order (TRO) against the implementation of the Ombudsman’s Joint Order CESO III (Director Brion) and Makati City Vice Mayor Romulo V. Peña, Jr. (Peña,
(preventive suspension order for 6 months without pay) preventively suspending Jr.) thereupon assumed office as Acting Mayor.
Binay and several other public officers and employees of the City Government of At noon of the same day, the CA issued a Resolution, granting Binay, Jr.'s prayer for
Makati; and (b) the Resolution ordering the Ombudsman to comment on private a TRO. Further arguing the acts subject of the administrative cases against Binay, Jr.
respondent’s petition for contempt. were all committed during his prior term, then, applying the condonation doctrine,
Binay, Jr.'s re- election meant that he can no longer be administratively charged.
On July 22, 2014, a complaint/affidavit was filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman against Binay, Jr. and other public officers and employees of the City The Ombudsman filed the present petition before this Court arguing: (a) the CA had
Government of Makati (Binay, Jr., et al), accusing them of Plunder and violation of no jurisdiction to grant Binay, Jr.'s prayer for a TRO and (b) the CA's directive for
Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, otherwise known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt the Ombudsman to comment on Binay, Jr.'s petition for contempt is illegal and
Practices Act," in connection with the five (5) phases of the procurement and improper, considering that the Ombudsman is an impeachable officer, and therefore,
construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building (Makati Parking Building). cannot be subjected to contempt proceedings. However, Binay, Jr. argues that
Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution specifically grants the CA judicial
On September 9, 2014, the Ombudsman constituted a Special Panel of Investigators power to review acts of any branch or instrumentality of government, including the
to conduct a fact-finding investigation, submit an investigation report, and file the Office of the Ombudsman, in case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
necessary complaint, if warranted. Subsequently, on March 5, 2015, the 1st Special excess of jurisdiction, which he asserts was committed in this case.
Panel filed a complaint (OMB Complaint) against Binay, Jr., et al, charging them
with six (6) administrative cases and six (6) criminal cases. ISSUES:
1. Whether the Petition filed before the SC, without resorting to the filing of a
As to Binay, Jr., the OMB Complaint alleged that he was involved in anomalous motion for reconsideration, was the Ombudsman’s plain, speedy, and adequate
activities attending the following procurement and construction phases of the Makati remedy
Parking Building project, committed during his previous and present terms as City
Mayor of Makati. 2. Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) has subject matter jurisdiction over the subject
matter of the petition
During Binay Jr.’s term, Binay, Jr. issued the Notice of Award for Phase III, Phase
IV, and Phase V of the Makati Parking Building project to Hilmarc's Construction 3. Whether the CA has subject matter jurisdiction to issue a Temporary Restraining
Corporation (Hilmarc's), and consequently, executed the corresponding contract on Order (“TRO”) and/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (“WPI”) enjoining the
without the required publication and the lack of architectural design, and approved implementation of the preventive suspension issued by Ombudsman against Binay,
the release of funds therefor. Jr.
Binay, Jr. filed a petition before the CA seeking the nullification of the preventive
suspension order, and praying for the issuance of a TRO and/or WPI to enjoin its
implementation. Primarily, Binay, Jr. argued that he could not be held
administratively liable for any anomalous activity attending any of the five (5) RULING:
phases of the Makati Parking Building project since Phases I and II were undertaken
before he was elected Mayor of Makati in 2010; and Phases III to V transpired FIRST ISSUE:
during his first term and that his re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second
term effectively condoned his administrative liability. As a general rule, a motion for reconsideration must first be filed with the lower
court prior to resorting to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari or prohibition since
a motion for reconsideration may still be considered as a plain, speedy, and adequate appellate jurisdiction without its advice and concurrence. It is therefore concluded
remedy in the ordinary course of law. However, certain exceptions were crafted to that the former provision is also unconstitutional and perforce, invalid. Thus, with
the general rule requiring a prior motion for reconsideration before the filing of a the unconstitutionality of the second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770, the Court,
petition for certiorari, which exceptions also apply to a petition for prohibition and consistent with existing jurisprudence, concludes that the CA has subject matter
one of these exceptions is when and where the issue raised is one purely of law or jurisdiction over the main petition.
where public interest is involved.
THIRD ISSUE:
This case tests the constitutional and statutory limits of the fundamental powers of
key government institutions - namely, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Legislature, YES. The CA's certiorari jurisdiction is not only original but also concurrent with
and the Judiciary - and hence, involves an issue of transcendental public importance the Regional Trial Courts (under Section 21 (1), Chapter II of BP 129), and the
that demands no less than a careful but expeditious resolution. Also raised is the Supreme Court (under Section 5, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution).
equally important issue on the propriety of the continuous application of the In view of the concurrence of these courts' jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari,
condonation doctrine as invoked by a public officer who desires exculpation from the doctrine of hierarchy of courts should be followed. In People v. Cuaresma, the
administrative liability. As such, the Ombudsman's direct resort to certiorari and doctrine was explained as follows:
prohibition before this Court, notwithstanding her failure to move for the prior
reconsideration of the assailed issuances before the CA, is justified. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not x x x to be taken as according to parties
seeking any of the writs an absolute, unrestrained freedom of choice of the court to
SECOND ISSUE: which application therefor will be directed. There is after all a hierarchy of courts.
That hierarchy is determinative of the venue of appeals, and should also serve as a
YES, the CA has jurisdiction on the subject matter. The Ombudsman's argument general determinant of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs.
against the CA's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the main petition, and her A becoming regard for that judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions
corollary prayer for its dismissal, is based on her interpretation of Section 14, RA for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level ("inferior") courts should be
6770, or the Ombudsman Act. filed with the Regional Trial Court, and those against the latter, with the Court of
Appeals.
Upon an assiduous scrutiny of the legislative intent (the reasoning behind the law),
the Court is, however, unconvinced that the provision debated on was Section 14, When a court has subject matter jurisdiction over a particular case, as conferred unto
RA 6770, as the Ombudsman invokes. In Fabian v. Desiertoni, the Court struck it by law, said court may then exercise its jurisdiction acquired over that case, which
down the fourth paragraph of Section 27, RA 6770 as unconstitutional since it had is called judicial power. Hence, with Congress interfering with matters of procedure
the effect of increasing the appellate jurisdiction of the Court without its advice and (through passing the first paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770) without the Court's
concurrence in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. consent thereto, it remains that the CA had the authority to issue the questioned
Moreover, this provision was found to be inconsistent with Section 1, Rule 45 of the injunctive writs enjoining the implementation of the preventive suspension order
present 1997 Rules of Procedure which, as above-intimated, applies only to a review against Binay, Jr. At the risk of belaboring the point, these issuances were merely
of "judgments or final orders of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court ancillary to the exercise of the CA's certiorari jurisdiction conferred to it under
of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court, or other courts authorized by law;" and not Section 9 (1), Chapter I of BP 129, as amended, and which it had already acquired
of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, the remedy now over the main case.
being a Rule 43 appeal to the Court of Appeals.

The second paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 limits the remedy against "decision or
findings" of the Ombudsman to a Rule 45 appeal - similar to the fourth paragraph of
Section 27, RA 6770 - and thus attempts to effectively increase the Supreme Court's
● His Duncano filed for a motion to dismiss stating that he is not in the
CASE 10 purview or jurisdiction of of the Office of the Ombudsman since he is
DANILO A. DUNCANO and HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (JAO) classified to have a​ Salary Grade of 26, despite being a Regional director​.
July 15, 2015| PERALTA, J. | Sandiganbayan - Jurisdiction ● The OSP’s contention was fact that the position of R​egional Director was
PETITIONER​​: DANILO A. DUNCANO specifically mentioned without indication as to its salary grade signifies the
RESPONDENTS​​: HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (2nd DIVISION), and HON. lawmakers’ intention that officials occupying such position, regardless of
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTON salary grade, fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
Pertinent Law: ● The CA denies the motion to dismiss and its MR
"SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.– The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original ●
jurisdiction in all cases involving: Issue: WoN Duncano is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
Held and Ratio: No. ​the Supreme Court held that the phrase "otherwise classified
"A. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the as Grade ‘27’ and higher" qualifies "regional director and higher" is apparent from
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, the Sponsorship Speech of Senator Raul S. Roco on Senate Bill Nos. 1353and 844,
Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of which eventually became R.A. Nos. 7975 and 8249
the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the government, ● To speed up trial in the Sandiganbayan, Republic Act No. 7975 was enacted
whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the commission for that Court to concentrate on the "larger fish" and leave the "small fry" to
of the offense: the lower courts.
○ It divested the Sandiganbayan of jurisdiction over public officials
"(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of ​regional whose salary grades were at Grade "26" or lower, devolving
director and higher​, otherwise classified as ​Grade ‘27’ and highe​​r, of the thereby these cases to the lower courts, and retaining the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989: jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only over public officials whose
salary grades were at Grade "27" or higher and over other specific
public officials holding important positions in government
Facts:
regardless of salary grade
● Petitioner Danilo A. Duncano is, at the time material to the case, the
● Those that are classified as Salary Grade 26 and below may still fall within
Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) with Salary
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, provided that they hold the positions
Grade 26 as classified under Compensation and Position Classification Act
enumerated by the law
of 1989.
● Duncano is not an executive official with Salary Grade 27 or higher.
○ On March 24, 2009, the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP),
Neither does he hold any position particularly enumerated in Section 4 (A)
Office of the Ombudsman, filed a criminal case against him for
(1) (a) to (g). As he correctly argues, his case is, in fact, on all fours with
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 11 of Code of Conduct
Cuyco (stare decisis).
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
Dispositive:
■ Filed because of the non-filling his SALN in 2002
■ Disclosing his financial and business interests/connection
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the instant petition for certiorari is
in Documail Provides Corporation and Don Plus Trading
GRANTED. The August 18, 2009 Resolution and February 8, 2010 Order of the
of which he and his family are the registered owners,
Sandiganbayan Second Division, which denied petitioner's Motion to Dismiss on
■ And indicating 1993 Nissan Patrol motor vehicle
the ground of lack of jurisdiction, are REVERSED AND SET ASIDE.
Legal systems- ​to an operating set of legal institutions, Procedures and rules. It
could also include unwritten practices, beliefs and attitudes of those invovled one
way or the other with the law.
Law - ​the center of the legal system
● General sense - mass of obligatory rules for the purpose of governing the
relations of the persons in society.
● Specific sense - rules of conduct, just obligatory promulgated by legitimate
authority, and of common observance and benefit
● Types of law
○ 1987 consti
○ Statutes
○ Admin regu
○ Customs, if authorized by law
○ Judicial Decisions
○ Legal institutions
● Philippine legal system is mixture of civil law and common law regimes.
This was the inevitable result of successive colonization of the country by
Spain and the United States
○ Is a mixture of of common law, civil law and indigenous
customary law and contemporary law as a result of the spanish,
american and japanese colonization.

Civil law vs. Common law summary table

Civil Law Common Law

Looking at the precedence of statutes In re: Max Shoop- the concept of


over court decisions which interprets growing and ever changing system of
them. legal principles and theories

Originated in Roman Law, 450 B.C. Traces its officials begging to ad 1066
when the normans won at hasting and
conquered England

Code law or written law Case law


READINGS
‘Article 3 Deductive method Inductive method
Civil Law and Common Law
Anchors chiefly on the letter of law Relies heavily on equity
A Guide to Philippine Legal Information by Antonio Santos
Judge-proof law Judge-made law