JUS COGENS

The term erga omnes (Latin: in relation to everyone) in international law has been used as a legal term
describing obligations owed by States towards the community of states as a whole. The concept was recognized by
the ICJ in Barcelona Traction:
x x x an essential distinction should be drawn between the obligations of a State towards the
international community as a whole, and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the field of
diplomatic protection. By their very nature, the former are the concern of all States. In view of
the importance of the rights involved, all States can be held to have a legal interest in their
protection; they are obligations erga omnes.http://www.search.com/reference/Erga_omnes -
_note-0#_note-0
Such obligations derive, for example, in contemporary international law, from the outlawing of acts of aggression, and
of genocide, as also from the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person, including
protection from slavery and racial discrimination. Some of the corresponding rights of protection have entered into the
body of general international law … others are conferred by international instruments of a universal or quasi-universal
character.
The Latin phrase, ‘erga omnes,’ has since become one of the rallying cries of those sharing a belief in the emergence
of a value-based international public order. However, as is so often the case, the reality is neither so clear nor so
bright. Whatever the relevance of obligations erga omnes as a legal concept, its full potential remains to be realized
in practice.69
The term is closely connected with the international law concept of jus cogens. In international law, the term "jus
cogens" (literally, "compelling law") refers to norms that command peremptory authority, superseding conflicting
treaties and custom. Jus cogens norms are considered peremptory in the sense that they are mandatory, do not
admit derogation, and can be modified only by general international norms of equivalent authority.

DOUBLE CRIMINALITY RULE

Under the double criminality rule, the extraditable offense must be criminal under the laws of both the requesting and
the requested states. This simply means that the requested state comes under no obligation to surrender the person
if its laws do not regard the conduct covered by the request for extradition as criminal.

ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE

The act of state doctrine is one of the methods by which States prevent their national courts from deciding disputes
which relate to the internal affairs of another State, the other two being immunity and non-justiciability.39 It is an
avoidance technique that is directly related to a State’s obligation to respect the independence and equality of other
States by not requiring them to submit to adjudication in a national court or to settlement of their disputes without their
consent.40 It requires the forum court to exercise restraint in the adjudication of disputes relating to legislative or
other governmental acts which a foreign State has performed within its territorial limits.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC
RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CASES

Precautionary principle states that when human activities may lead to threats of serious and irreversible damage to
the environment that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that threat.

PART V
EVIDENCE
RULE 20
PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Section 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.
Section 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.

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Republic Act No. 7438 April 27, 1992
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Statement of Policy. – It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being and
guarantee full respect for human rights.
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
 (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who arrests, detains or
investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to and
understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his
own choice, who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent
and independent counsel by the investigating officer.lawphi1Ÿ
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer, provided that before
such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, it
shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the
investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise, such
investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and
in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial
confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code,
or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel;
otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or
conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by
him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization duly
accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or
fiancée, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or
ward.
As used in this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the
"inviting" officer for any violation of law.
Section 3. Assisting Counsel. – Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case, those
charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes.
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees;
(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with light
felonies;lawphi1©alf
(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave
felonies;
(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable with a capital offense.
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial investigation is
conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province comprising such municipality or
city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay
the fees of assisting counsel before the province pays said fees.
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be
detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Section 4. Penalty Clause. – (a) Any arresting public officer or employee, or any investigating officer, who fails to
inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six thousand pesos
(P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more than ten (10) years, or both.
The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been
previously convicted of a similar offense.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee, or anyone acting upon orders of such
investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of
his own counsel.
(b) Any person who obstructs, prevents or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him
or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and conferring privately with him, or from
examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the
night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of
four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).lawphi1©
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility over any
detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and
prevent his escape.
Section 5. Repealing Clause. – Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws, presidential
decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 6. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official Gazette or in
any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Approved: April 27, 1992.

STOP AND FRISK RULE

People v. Cogaed clarified that there are exceptional circumstances "when searches are reasonable even when
warrantless."72 The following are recognized instances of permissible warrantless searches laid down in
jurisprudence: (1) a "warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest,"73 (2) search of "evidence in 'plain view,"' (3)
"search of a moving vehicle," (4) "consented warrantless search[es]," (5) "customs search," (6) "stop and frisk," and
(7) "exigent and emergency circumstances

A "stop and frisk" search is defined in People v. Chua 107 as "the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband." 108 Thus, the allowable scope of a "stop and frisk" search
is limited to a "protective search of outer clothing for weapons."

Although a "stop and frisk" search is a necessary law enforcement measure specifically directed towards crime
prevention, there is a need to safeguard the right of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Law enforcers do not have unbridled discretion in conducting "stop and frisk" searches. While probable cause is not
required, a "stop and frisk" search cannot be validated on the basis of a suspicion or hunch. 111 Law enforcers must
have a genuine reason to believe, based on their experience and the particular circumstances of each case, that
criminal activity may be afoot. 112 Reliance on one (1) suspicious activity alone, or none at all, cannot produce a
reasonable search.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Double jeopardy exists when the following requisites are present: (1) a first jeopardy attached prior to the second;
(2) the first jeopardy has been validly terminated; and (3) a second jeopardy is for the same offense as in the first. A
first jeopardy attaches only (a) after a valid indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d) when a
valid plea has been entered; and (e) when the accused has been acquitted or convicted, or the case dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent.

ELECTION CONTEST
AM. No. 07-4-15-SC
RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ELECTION CONTESTS BEFORE THE COURTS INVOLVING ELECTIVE
MUNICIPAL AND BARANGAY OFFICIALS
RULE 2
ELECTION CONTESTS
SECTION 1. Jurisdiction of regional trial courts. - Regional trial courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over
all election contests involving elective municipal officials.
SEC. 2. Jurisdiction of municipal trial courts. - Municipal trial courts shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all
election contests involving elective barangay officials.
SEC. 3. How initiated. - An election contest is initiated by the filing of an election protest or a petition for quo
warranto against an elective municipal or barangay official. An election protest or a petition for quo warranto shall be
filed directly with the proper court in three legible copies plus such number of copies corresponding to the number of
protestees or respondents.
An election protest shall not include a petition for quo warranto, nor shall a petition for quo warranto include an
election protest.

Pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9006, otherwise known as the "Fair Election Act," the
Commission on Elections has RESOLVED to promulgate, as it hereby promulgates the following
implementing rules and regulations for the May 14, 2001 National and Local Elections
Sec. 26. Effect of filing certificate of candidacy by elective officials. - Any elective official, whether national or local,
who has filed a certificate of candidacy for the same or any other office, shall not be considered resigned from his
office.
CURFEW ORDINANCE

August 8, 2017

G.R. No. 225442

SAMAHAN NG MGA PROGRESIBONG KABATAAN (SPARK),* JOANNE ROSE SACE LIM, JOHN
ARVIN NAVARRO BUENAAGUA, RONEL BACCUTAN, MARK LEO DELOS REYES, and CLARISSA
JOYCE VILLEGAS, minor, for herself and as represented by her father, JULIAN VILLEGAS,
JR., Petitioners,
vs.
QUEZON CITY, as represented by MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA, CITY OF MANILA, as represented by
MAYOR JOSEPH ESTRADA, and NAVOTAS CITY, as represented by MAYOR JOHN REY TIANGCO,,
Respondents,

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a
basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn
from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
Government. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

As may be gleaned from this provision, the rearing of children (i.e., referred to as the "youth") for civic efficiency and
the development of their moral character are characterized not only as parental rights, but also as parental duties.
This means that parents are not only given the privilege of exercising their authority over their children; they are
equally obliged to exercise this authority conscientiously. The duty aspect of this provision is a reflection of the
State's independent interest to ensure that the youth would eventually grow into free, independent, and
well-developed citizens of this nation. For indeed, it is during childhood that minors are prepared for additional
obligations to society. "[T]he duty to prepare the child for these [obligations] must be read to include the
inculcation of moral standards, religious beliefs, and elements of good citizenship." "This affirmative process
58

of teaching, guiding, and inspiring by precept and example is essential to the growth of young people into mature,
socially responsible citizens."

While parents have the primary role in child-rearing, it should be stressed that "when actions concerning the child
have a relation to the public welfare or the well-being of the child, the [Sltate may act to promote these legitimate
interests."66 Thus, "[i]n cases in which harm to the physical or mental health of the child or to public safety, peace,
order, or welfare is demonstrated, these legitimate state interests may override the parents' qualified right to control
the upbringing of their children."67

As our Constitution itself provides, the State is mandated to support parents in the exercise of these rights and
duties. State authority is therefore, not exclusive of, but rather, complementary to parental supervision. In Nery v.
Lorenzo,68 this Court acknowledged the State's role as parens patriae in protecting minors, viz. :

[Where minors are involved, the State acts as parens patriae. To it is cast the duty of protecting the rights of persons
or individual who because of age or incapacity are in an unfavorable position, vis-a-vis other parties. Unable as they
are to take due care of what concerns them, they have the political community to look after their welfare. This
obligation the state must live up to. It cannot be recreant to such a trust. As was set forth in an opinion of the United
States Supreme Court: "This prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State, x x
x."69 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

As parens patriae, the State has the inherent right and duty to aid parents in the moral development of their
children,70 and, thus, assumes a supporting role for parents to fulfill their parental obligations. In Bellotti, it was held
that "[I]egal restriction on minors, especially those supportive of the parental role, may be important to the child's
chances for the full growth and maturity that make eventual participation in a free society meaningful and
rewarding. Under the Constitution, the State can properly conclude that parents and others, teachers for example,
who have the primary responsibility for children's well-being are entitled to the support of the laws designed to aid
discharge of that responsibility."71

The Curfew Ordinances are but examples of legal restrictions designed to aid parents in their role of promoting their
children's well-being. As will be later discussed at greater length, these ordinances further compelling State interests
(particularly, the promotion of juvenile safety and the prevention of juvenile crime), which necessarily entail limitations
on the primary right of parents to rear their children. Minors, because of their peculiar vulnerability and lack of
experience, are not only more exposed to potential physical harm by criminal elements that operate during the night;
their moral well-being is likewise imperiled as minor children are prone to making detrimental decisions during this
time.
Nevertheless, grave and overriding considerations of public interest justify restrictions even if made against
fundamental rights. Specifically on the freedom to move from one place to another, jurisprudence provides that this
right is not absolute.95 As the 1987 Constitution itself reads, the State96 may impose limitations on the exercise of
this right, provided that they: (1) serve the interest of national security, public safety, or public health; and (2) are
provided by law.97

The stated purposes of the Curfew Ordinances, specifically the promotion of juvenile safety and prevention of
juvenile crime, inarguably serve the interest of public safety. The restriction on the minor's movement and activities
within the confines of their residences and their immediate vicinity during the curfew period is perceived to reduce the
probability of the minor becoming victims of or getting involved in crimes and criminal activities. As to the second
requirement, i.e., that the limitation "be provided by law," our legal system is replete with laws emphasizing the
State's duty to afford special protection to children, i.e., RA 7610,98 as amended, RA 977599 RA 9262100 RA
9851101RA 9344102 RA 10364103 RA 9211104 RA8980,105 RA9288,106 and Presidential Decree (PD)
603,107 as amended.

Particularly relevant to this case is Article 139 of PD 603, which explicitly authorizes local government units, through
their city or municipal councils, to set curfew hours for children.:

Strict Scrutiny Test

a. Compelling State Interest.

Jurisprudence holds that compelling State interests include constitutionally declared policies.133 This Court has
ruled that children's welfare and the State's mandate to protect and care for them as parenspatriae constitute
compelling interests to justify regulations by the State.134 It is akin to the paramount interest of the state for which
some individual liberties must give way.135 As explained in Nunez, the Bellotti framework shows that the State has a
compelling interest in imposing greater restrictions on minors than on adults. The limitations on minors under
Philippine laws also highlight this compelling interest of the State to protect and care for their welfare.

b. Least Restrictive Means/ Narrowly Drawn.

The second requirement of the strict scrutiny test stems from the fundamental premise that citizens should not be
hampered from pursuing legitimate activities in the exercise of their constitutional rights. While rights may be
restricted, the restrictions must be minimal or only to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose or to address the
State's compelling interest. When it is possible for governmental regulations to be more narrowly drawn to avoid
conflicts with constitutional rights, then they must be so narrowly drawn.

QUO WARRANTO v. IMPEACHMENT

Quo warranto and impeachment are two distinct proceedings, although both may result in the ouster of a public
officer. Strictly speaking, quo warranto grants the relief of "ouster", while impeachment affords "removal."

A quo warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy to determine a person's right or title to a public office and to
oust the holder from its enjoyment. It is the proper action to inquire into a public officer's eligibility or the validity of
11 12

his appointment. Under Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, a quo warranto proceeding involves a judicial determination
13

of the right to the use or exercise of the office.

Impeachment, on the other hand, is a political process undertaken by the legislature to determine whether the public
officer committed any of the impeachable offenses, namely, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. It does not ascertain the officer's eligibility for
14

appointment or election, or challenge the legality of his assumption of office. Conviction for any of the impeachable
offenses shall result in the removal of the impeachable official from office. 15