BAR SQUAD

Est. 2002

AMCAW vs DOH
By this recognition, we acknowledge that a foreign government acting in its jus imperii function
cannot be held liable in a Philippine court. Philippine courts, as part of the Philippine government,
cannot and should not take jurisdiction over cases involving the public acts of a foreign govern-
ment. Taking jurisdiction would amount to authority over a foreign government, and would thus vio-
late the principle of sovereign independence and equality. This recognition is altogether different
from exempting governments whose agents are in the Philippines from complying with our domes-
tic laws. We have yet to declare in a case that the principle of sovereign independence and equali-
ty exempts agents of foreign governments from compliance with the application of Philippine do-
mestic law. In the present case, GAMCA has not adduced any evidence in the court below, nor has
it presented any argument before us showing that the principle of sovereign equality and indepen-
dence has developed into an international custom shielding state agents from compliance with an-
other state's domestic laws. Under this situation, the Court is in no position to determine whether
the practice that GAMCA alleges has indeed crystallized into an international custom.

By its very nature, the exercise of the State's police power limits individual rights and liberties, and
subjects them to the "far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number."92
Though vast and plenary, this State power also carries limitations, specifically, it may not be exer-
cised arbitrarily or unreasonably. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose for which it is exercised, that is,
the advancement of the public good. To be considered reasonable, the government's exercise of
police power must satisfy the "valid object and valid means" method of analysis: first, the interest
of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, requires interference; and
second, the means employed are reasonably necessary to attain the objective sought and not un-
duly oppressive upon individuals. These two elements of reasonableness are undeniably present
in Section 16 of RA No. 10022. The prohibition against the referral decking system is consistent
with the State's exercise of the police power to prescribe regulations to promote the health, safety,
and general welfare of the people. Public interest demands State interference on health matters,
since the welfare of migrant workers is a legitimate public concern.

Votes of Congress
Voting Separately
1. Choosing the President (Sec. 4, Art. VII)
2. Determine President’s disability (Sec. 11, Art. VII)
3. Confirming nomination of the Vice President (Sec. 9, Art. VII)
4. Declaring the existence of a state of war (Sec.23, Art. VI)
5. Proposing constitutional amendments (Sec.1, Art. XVII)

Voting Jointly
To revoke or extend proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or placing
the Philippines under martial law. (Sec. 18, Art. VII)

Grace Poe Case

Foundlings; Presumptions; That a person with typical Filipino features is abandoned in Catholic
Church in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such
that there would be more than a ninety-nine percent (99%) chance that a child born in the province
would be a Filipino, would indicate more than ample probability if not statistical certainty, that peti-
tioner’s parents are Filipinos.

As a matter of law, foundlings are as a class, natural-born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution’s
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely ex-
clude foundlings either. Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect to
foundlings, there is a need to examine the intent of the framers.

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 1 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

Burden of Proof; The burden is on those who wish to use the constitution to discriminate against
foundlings to show that the constitution really intended to take this path to the dark side and inflict
this across the board marginalization.

Domestic laws on adoption also support the principle that foundlings are Filipinos. These laws do
not provide that adoption confers citizenship upon the adoptee. Rather, the adoptee must be a Fil-
ipino in the first place to be adopted. The most basic of such laws is Article 15 of the Civil Code
which provides that “[l]aws relating to family rights, duties, status, conditions, legal capacity of per-
sons are binding on citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.” Adoption deals with sta-
tus, and a Philippine adoption court will have jurisdiction only if the adoptee is a Filipino.

Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law. Under the 1987 Constitution, an in-
ternational law can become part of the sphere of domestic law either by transformation or incorpo-
ration. The transformation method requires that an international law be transformed into a domes-
tic law through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. On the other hand, generally
accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the Constitution,
form part of the laws of the land even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. Generally ac-
cepted principles of international law include international custom as evidence of a general prac-
tice accepted as law, and general principles of law recognized by civilized nations. International
customary rules are accepted as binding as a result from the combination of two elements: the es-
tablished, widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological element
known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to law or necessity).

It is a generally accepted principle of international law to presume foundlings as having been born
of nationals of the country in which the foundling is found.

Passports; It has been pointed that the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) issues passports to
foundlings. Passports are by law, issued only to citizens. This shows that even the executive de-
partment, acting through the DFA, considers foundlings as Philippine citizens.

Principles and Controlling doctrines on Impeachment

Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment complaint
and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning of
Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in
the foregoing manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one year period
following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. In fine, considering that the first impeachment
complaint, was filed by former President Estrada against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along
with seven associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003 and referred to the House Committee
on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second impeachment complaint filed by Representatives Gilber-
to C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella against the Chief Justice on October 23, 2003 vio-
lates the constitutional prohibition against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the
same impeachable officer within a one-year period.

The 1987 Constitution, though vesting in the House of Representatives the exclusive power to ini-
tiate impeachment cases, provides for several limitations to the exercise of such power as embod-
ied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI thereof. These limitations include the manner of filing,
required vote to impeach, and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the same official.

The Constitution did not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Con-
gress. Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or in the language of Baker v. Carr, “judi-
cially discoverable standards” for determining the validity of the exercise of such discretion,
through the power of judicial review.

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 2 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

The Impeachment Rules are clear in echoing the constitutional requirements and providing that
there must be a “verified complaint or resolution”, and that the substance requirement is met if
there is “a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of
the committee”.

Grounds for Impeachment of President, Chief Justice and other impeachable officials
SECTION 2, ART. XI The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the
Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office,
on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

Principle of Check and Balance and Separation of Powers

The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not
through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the gov-
ernment has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme within its own
sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and dis-
tinct that the Constitution intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each
other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to secure
coordination in the workings of the various departments of the government. [Angara vs. Electoral
Commission, G.R. No. 45081, July 15, 1936]

“Potestas delegata non potest delegare”, based on the ethical principle that delegated power
constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate through the instrumentality
of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.

EXCEPTION:
1. tariff powers of the president
2. emergency powers to the president
3. delegation to the people
4. delegation to the local government units
5. delegation to the people at large
6. Delegation

Role of Commission on Appointments

Article VI, Section 18 "There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of the President
of the Senate, as ex-officio Chairman, twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of the
Representatives, elected by each house on the basis of proportional representation from the politi-
cal parties and parties or organizations registered under the party-list system represented therein.
The Chairman of the Commission shall not vote, except in case of a tie. The Commission shall act
on all appointments submitted to it within thirty session days of the Congress from their submis-
sion. The Commission shall rule by a majority vote of all the Members."

Role of Ombudsman and Sandiganbayan

MANDATE OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN:

SEC. 5. The Batasang Pambansa shall create a special court, to be known as Sandiganbayan,
which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving graft and corrupt practices and
such other offenses committed by public officers and employees, including those in government-
owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be determined by law. (Art. XIII),
1973 Constitution

MANDATE OF THE OMBUDSMAN:

THE OMBUDSMAN AND HIS DEPUTIES, as protectors of the people shall act promptly on com-
plaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or of any

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 3 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corpora-

tions, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence
warrants in order to promote efficient service by the Government to the people (Section 13, R.A.
No. 6770; see also Section 12 Article XI of the 1987 Constitution). The Ombudsman shall give pri-
ority to complaints filed against high ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervi-
sory positions, complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving large sums of
money and/or properties (Sec. 15, R.A. No. 6770).

Role of Civil Service Commission

The Civil Service Commission (CSC) is the central personnel agency of the Philippine government.
One of the three independent constitutional commissions with adjudicative responsibility in the na-
tional government structure, it is also tasked to render final arbitration on disputes and personnel
actions on Civil Service matters.

Under Executive Order No. 292, the Civil Service Commission shall perform the following specific
functions:
1. leading and initiating the professionalization of the civil service;
2. promoting public accountability in government service;
3. adopting performance-based tenure in government; and
4. implementing the integrated rewards and incentives program for government employees.

Appointing Power
SECTION 3. ART. VII There shall be a Vice-President who shall have the same qualifications and
term of office and be elected with and in the same manner as the President. He may be removed
from office in the same manner as the President.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a Member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no
confirmation.

SECTION 14. Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless re-
voked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or reassumption of office.

SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of
his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appoint-
ments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or en-
danger public safety.

SECTION 16. ART. VII The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on
Appointments, appoint the heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public minis-
ters and consuls, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and oth-
er officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution. He shall also appoint all oth-
er officers of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law, and
those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress may, by law, vest the ap-
pointment of other officers lower in rank in the President alone, in the courts, or in the heads of de-
partments, agencies, commissions, or boards.

The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress,
whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until after disap-
proval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress.

Ad Interim Appointment - It is made while Congress is not in session, before confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments (CA); it is immediately effective, and ceases to be valid if disap-
proved or bypassed by the CA or until the next adjournment of Congress (Const. Art. VII, Sec. 16)

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 4 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

Regular Appointment - It is made by the President while Congress is in session and becomes
effective after the nomination is confirmed by the CA and continues until the end of the term. (Cruz,
Supra at 207-208)

AD INTERIM APPOINTMENT REGULAR APPOINTMENT

When Made

Made during recess Made during the legislative session

Made before such confirmation Made only after the nomination is

confirmed by the CA

Duration

Shall cease to be valid if disapproved by the Continues until the end of the term of the
CA or bypassed by CA or until the next appointee once confirmed by the CA
adjournment of Congress

Midnight Appointment
SECTION 15. ART. VII Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to
the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except tempo-
rary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public
service or endanger public safety.

REASON FOR PROHIBITION ON MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS

Of course, nobody will assert that President Garcia ceased to be such earlier than at noon at De-
cember 30, 1961. But it is common sense to believe that after the proclamation of the election of
President Macapagal, his was no more than a "care-taker" administration. He was duty bound to
prepare of the orderly transfer of authority to the incoming President, and he should not do acts
which he ought to know, would embarrass or obstruct the policies of his successor. The time for
debate had passed; the electorate had spoken. It was not for him to use his powers as incumbent
President to continue the political warfare that had ended or to avail himself of presidential prerog-
atives to serve partisan purposes. The filing up of vacancies in important positions, if few, and so
spaced as to afford some assurance of deliberate action and careful consideration of the need for
the appointment and the appointee's qualifications may undoubtedly be permitted. But the is-
suance of 350 appointments in one night and the planned induction of almost all of them a few
hours before the inauguration of the new President may, with some reason, be regarded by the
latter as an abuse of Presidential prerogatives, the steps taken being apparently a mere partisan
effort to fill all vacant positions irrespective of fitness and other conditions, and thereby to deprive
the new administration of an opportunity to make the corresponding appointments. [Aytona vs.
Castillo, G.R. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962]

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 5 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

Immunities of Congress
A. Privilege from Arrest - Section 11, Article VI

A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not
more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No
member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in
Congress or in any committee thereof.

B. Privilege Speech and Debate - Section 11, Article VI

A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses be punishable by not
more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No
Member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in
Congress or in any committee thereof.

Pardoning Power 

Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this Constitution, the President may
grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by
final judgment.



He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a majority of all the Mem-
bers of the Congress. (Art. VII, Sec. 19, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

An act of grace which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from punishment which the
law inflicts for a crime he has committed. A pardon is a deed, to the validity of which delivery is
essential, and delivery is not complete without acceptance. It can be rejected (United States v.
Wilson, G.R. No. 90-1745 March 24, 1992).

a. Plenary or partial

b. Absolute or conditional

Conditional pardon — is in the nature of a contract between the sovereign power or the Chief Ex-
ecutive and the convicted criminal to the effect that the former will release the ålatter subject to the
condition that if he does not comply with the terms of the pardon, he will be recommitted to prison
to serve the unexpired portion of the sentence or an additional one.

It is discretionary and may not be controlled by the legislature or reversed by the court, unless
there is a constitutional violation (Cruz, supra at 443)

Doctrine of Non-Diminution/ Non-Impairment of the President’s Power of Pardon

Any act of Congress by way of statute cannot operate to delimit the pardoning power of the Presi-
dent.

Limitations on the exercise of the pardoning power:

1. Cannot be granted in cases of impeachment; (Const. Art. VII, Sec. 19)
2. Cannot be granted in violations of election laws without favorable recommendations of the
COMELEC; (Const. Art. IX-C, Sec. 5)
3. Can be granted only after conviction by final judgment (except amnesty); (Const. Art. VII, Sec.
19)
4. Cannot be granted in cases of legislative contempt or civil contempt; (Cruz supra at 445)
5. Cannot absolve convict of civil liability; (Id.)

6. Cannot restore public offices forfeited. (Monsari c. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 78249, February 9,
1989)

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 6 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

Exception: If a pardon is given because he was acquitted on the ground that he did not commit the
crime, reinstatement and backwages would be due (Garcia v. COA, G.R. No. L-75025, September
14, 1993).

Ombudsman Act - Condonation Doctrine

Section 24 of Republic Act No 6770 or “The Ombudsman Act of 1989”
“Sec. 24 Preventive Suspension. — The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any
officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the evidence of
guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression
or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would warrant removal
from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed
against him.



The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated by the Office of the Om-
budsman but not more than six (6) months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of
the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, negligence or petition of the respon-
dent, in which case the period of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of sus-
pension herein provided.”



The provision sets the following conditions for the Ombudsman to preventively suspend a public
official or employee pending an investigation:



1. if the evidence of guilt of strong

2. if the charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave miscon-
duct or neglect in the performance of duty

3. if the charges would warrant removal from the service

4. if the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him

The Supreme Court abandoned the condonation doctrine, which is used by elected officials in
evading administrative liability for acts committed during their previous terms in office.

Requisites of a valid check point - plain view doctrine

One such form of search is the “stop and search” without a warrant at military or police check-
points, which has been declared not to be illegal per se so long as it is required by the exigencies
of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists [Valmonte v. de Villa, 178 SCRA
211].

A checkpoint search may either be a mere routine inspection, or it may involve an extensive
search. For a mere routine inspection, the search is normally permissible when it is limited to a
mere visual search, where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search. On the
other hand, when the vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, it would be consti-
tutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause
to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law offender or they will find the instru-
mentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched [Caballes v. Court of Ap-
peals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002; People v. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860, January 20, 2003].

Rights against unreasonable searches and seizures

Sec. 2. Art. Ill: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be invi-
olable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue, except upon probable cause to be

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 7 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

determined personally by a judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce, particularly describing the place to be searched, or the per-
sons or things to the seized.”

a) The protection is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not.
Artificial persons are also entitled to the guarantee, although they may be required to open their
books of accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of police and taxing powers. See
Moncada v. People’s Court, 80 Phil 1.

b) The right is personal; it may be invoked only by the person entitled to it [Stonehill v. Diokno, 20
SCRA 383]. As such, the right may be waived [Lopez v. Commissioner of Customs, 68 SCRA
320], either expressly or impliedly [People v. Malasugui, infra.], but the waiver must be made by
the person whose right is invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver
[People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457].

c) The right applies as a distraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked
with the enforcement of the law. The protection cannot extend to acts committed by private individ-
uals so as to bring them within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government [People
v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57]. This is reiterated in Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No.
113271, October 16, 1997, where the Supreme Court said that the Bill of Rights does not protect
citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by private individuals.

Valid Search and Seizure incidental to a valid arrest

As a general rule, a search and seizure is valid if conducted under a valid search warrant. But, by
way of exception, a warrantless search and seizure may be conducted as an incident of a valid
arrest. The arrest must be valid and must precede the search in order for the search to be valid.
The search must be confined to the body of the apprehended and within the vicinity of the person’s
reach. This permissible warrantless search is primarily for the protection of the police. The warrant-
less arrest protects the police from any undue harm from any concealed weapon.

Amendment/ Revision / People’s Initiative

Amendment implies such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will
effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.

How to Effect an Amendment:

1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (Constituent Assembly)
2. A constitutional convention.
3. People’s Initiative

Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the
principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and- balances. There is also revision if
the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substan-
tial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that
adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects
several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provi-
sion being amended.

How to Effect a Revision:

1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (Constituent Assembly)
2. A constitutional convention.

Initiative is a form of direct legislation by the people consisting of two parts: petition and election.
It does not become effective until passed by voters and its availability does not remedy the denial
of the right to referendum.

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 8 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

Doctrine of Operative Fact

As a general rule, the nullification of an unconstitutional law or act carries with it the illegality of its
effects. However, in cases where nullification of the effects will result in inequity and injustice, the
operative fact doctrine may apply.

Under this doctrine, the law or administrative issuance is recognized as unconstitutional but the
effects of the unconstitutional law or administrative issuance, prior to its declaration of nullity, may
be left undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play.

As a rule of equity, the doctrine of operative fact can be invoked only by those who relied in good
faith on the law or the administrative issuance, prior to its declaration of nullity. Those who acted in
bad faith or with gross negligence cannot invoke the doctrine. Likewise, those directly responsible
for an illegal or unconstitutional act cannot invoke the doctrine. He who comes to equity must
come with clean hands,17 and he who seeks equity must do equity.18 Only those who merely relied
in good faith on the illegal or unconstitutional act, without any direct participation in the commission
of the illegal or unconstitutional act, can invoke the doctrine.

Declaration of Martial Law (Article VII, Section 18)

The President shall be 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 public safety requires it, he may,
for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of 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 a
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 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 func-
tioning 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.

Relative Constitutionality
The theory says that a statute valid at one time may become unconstitutional at another, because
of altered circumstances or changed conditions that make the practical operation of such a statute
arbitrary or confiscatory. Thus, the provisions of that statute, which may be valid as applied to one
set of facts but invalid as applied to another, cannot be merely compared with those applicable un-
der the Constitution.

From the manner in which it has been utilized in American and Philippine jurisprudence, however,
this novel theory finds relevance only when the factual situation covered by an assailed law
changes, not when another law is passed pertaining to subjects not directly covered by the former.
Thus, the theory applies only when circumstances that were specifically addressed upon the pas-

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 9 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

sage of the law change. It does not apply to changes or alterations extraneous to those specifically
addressed.

Due Process
Due process is a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government, whether com-
mitted by the legislative, the executive, or the judiciary. (Justice Isagani Cruz)

Substantive Due Process - this serves as a restriction on the government’s law and rule-making
powers. It requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his
life, liberty or property. (CRUZ); It must be a guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power
even when the power is exercised according to proper forms and procedure (BERNAS)
Requisites:
a. There must be a valid Law upon which it is based;
b. The law must have been passed or approved to accomplish a valid government objective;
c. The objective must be pursued in a lawful manner; and
d. The law as well as the Means to accomplish the objective must be valid and not oppressive.

Procedural Due Process- it serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial agen-
cies of the government (BERNAS); a guarantee of procedural fairness; it refers to the regular
methods of procedure to be observed before one’s life, liberty or property can be taken away from
him. Simply stated, it means the procedure to be observed must be fair. (SUAREZ)

Equal Protection
All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and re-
sponsibilities imposed. Natural and juridical persons are entitled to this guarantee; but with respect
to artificial persons, they enjoy the protection only insofar as their property is concerned.

Valid Classification. Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated
differently if there is a basis for valid classification. The requisites are:
6. Substantial distinctions which make for real differences.
7. Germane to the purpose of the law.
8. The distinctions which are the bases for the classification should have a reasonable relation to
the purpose of the law.
9. Not limited to existing conditions only. d) Must apply equally to all members of the same class.

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. The rule begins to operate at
once as soon as the investigation ceases to be, a general inquiry into an unsolved crime, and di-
rection is then aimed upon a particular suspect who has been taken into custody and to whom the
police would then direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating statements.

Writ of Amparo
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.

Precautionary Principle
Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irre-
versible damage to the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be
taken to avoid or diminish that threat. (Sec. 4, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases)

Rule 20 Precautionary Principle, Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 10 of 11

 BAR SQUAD
Est. 2002

SEC. 1. Applicability.—When there is a lack of full scientific certainty in establishing a causal link
between human activity and environmental effect, the court shall apply the precautionary principle
in resolving the case before it. The constitutional right of the people to a balanced and healthful
ecology shall be given the benefit of the doubt.


SEC. 2. Standards for application.—In applying the precautionary principle, the following factors,
among others, may be considered:
(1) threats to human life or health;
(2) inequity to present or future generations; or
(3) prejudice to the environment without legal consideration of the environmental rights of those
affected.

Jus Postliminium
No change of sovereignty during a belligerent occupation, the political laws of the occupied territo-
ry are merely suspended, subject to revival under the jus postliminium upon the end of the occupa-
tion. The principle of postliminium, as a part of public international law, is a specific version of the
maxim ex injuria jus non oritur, providing for the invalidity of all illegitimate acts that an occupant
may have performed on a given territory after its recapture by the legitimate sovereign.

Caram Rule
Caram Rule. Under the 1935 Constitution, those born in the Philippines of foreign parent, who be-
fore the adoption of the Constitution had been elected to public office in the Philippines, are con-
sidered Filipino citizens.

May the JBC adjust the age requirement of higher courts?

Sec. 7, Art. VIII. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower col-
legiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court
must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a
lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.

B.P. Big. 129 - Court of Appeals

Section 7. Qualifications. – The Presiding Justice and the Associate Justice shall have the same
qualifications as those provided in Constitution for Justice of the Supreme Court.

Virtus Venustas Integritas Page 11 of 11