PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS AND either straight or contoured, to serve as

geographic starting points to measure the

BASIC CONCEPTS breadth of the maritime zones and
continental shelf. Thus, baselines laws are
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS nothing but statutory mechanisms for
UNCLOS III States parties to delimit with
1. Modes of Proposing Amendments or precision the extent of their maritime zones
Revisions to the Constitution. and continental shelves. UNCLOS III has
Any amendment to, or revision of, this nothing to do with the acquisition (or loss) of
Constitution may be proposed by: territory (Magallona v. Ermita, 2011).
a. The Congress, upon a vote of 3/4 of all
its Members; or 6. Parents’ Right to Rear Their Children (Art.
b. A constitutional convention, by a vote II, Sec. 12).
of 2/3 of all the Members of Congress State authority is, not exclusive of, but
(Art. XVII, Sec. 1, 3). rather, complementary to parental
supervision. While parents have the primary
The Congress may also submit to the role in child-rearing, it should be stressed that
electorate the question of calling a when actions concerning the child have a
constitutional convention, by a majority vote relation to the public welfare or the well- being
of all the Members of Congress (Art. XVII, of the child, the State [as parens patriae] may
Sec. 3). act to promote these legitimate interests.
Thus, in cases in which harm to the physical
2. Revisions and Amendment Distinguished. or mental health of the child or to public
Revision generally affects several safety, peace, order, or welfare is
provisions of the constitution, while demonstrated, these legitimate state
amendment generally affects only the interests may override the parents’ qualified
specific provision being amended (Lambino
right to control the upbringing of their children
v. COMELEC, 2006). People’s initiative may
(SPARK v. Quezon City, 2017, J. Perlas-
only be done to propose amendments to the
Constitution. Bernabe Case).

3. Effectivity of the Amendment or Revision. 7. Precautionary Principle.

Any amendment to, or revision of, this The precautionary principle shall only be
Constitution under Sec. 1 hereof shall be relevant if there is concurrence of three
valid when ratified by a majority of the votes elements, namely: (1) uncertainty, (2) threat
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not of environmental damage and (3) serious
earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days or irreversible harm. In situations where the
after the approval of such amendment or threat is relatively certain, or that the causal
revision. link between an action and environmental
damage can be established, or the probability
Any amendment under Sec. 2 hereof of occurrence can be calculated, only
shall be valid when ratified by a majority of preventive, not precautionary measures, may
be taken. Neither will the precautionary
the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be
principle apply if there is no indication of a
held not earlier than 60 days nor later than
threat of environmental harm; or if the
90 days after the certification by the threatened harm is trivial or easily reversible.
COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition When the above concur, the case for the
(Art. XVII, Sec. 2). precautionary principle is strongest
(Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana Growers and
4. Change to Parliamentary Government is Exporters Association, Inc., 2016).
Revision.
A change in the structure of government 8. Principle of Non-Delegability of
is a revision of the Constitution, as when the Legislative Power; Exceptions.
three great co-equal branches of government Necessarily imbedded in doctrine of
in the present Constitution are reduced into separation of powers is the principle of non-
two. A shift from the present Bicameral- delegation of powers, as expressed in the
Presidential system to a Unicameral- Latin maxim potestas delegata non delegari
Parliamentary system is a revision of the potest, which means "what has been
Constitution (Lambino v. COMELEC, 2006). delegated, cannot be delegated." This
doctrine is based on the ethical principle that
5. R.A. No. 9522 is constitutional. such delegated power constitutes not only a
Baselines laws such as RA 9522 are right but a duty to be performed by the
enacted by UNCLOS III States parties to delegate through the instrumentality of his
mark-out specific basepoints along their own judgment and not through the
coasts from which baselines are drawn,
POLITICAL LAW COMMITTEE DEAN ED VINCENT S. ALBANO Adviser, CHERISH KIM FERRER Subject Chair, CHARLOTTE VINA CASINILLO, Francis
Arthur CORPUZ, CHRISTIAN TADURAN, PATRICK RAY BALISI, GERANI MALIJAN, Members
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MARY CYRIELL C. SUMANQUI Over-all Chairperson, ERICA MAE C. VISTA Chairperson for Academics, BEN REI E. BARBERO
Chairperson for Hotel Operations, JHELSEA LOUISE B. DIMAANO Vice Chairperson for Secretariat, EARL JUSTIN M. YAMBAO Vice Chairperson for Operations,
MA. ANGELICA B. DE LEON Vice Chairperson for Finance, ARRA OLMAYA J. BADANGAN Vice Chairperson for Audit, JORDAN N. CHAVEZ Vice Chairperson
for EDP, HANZ DARRYL D.TIU Vice Chairperson for Logistics, and DOHN ALFRED E. AQUILIZAN Vice Chairperson for Membership
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF CAMILLE VICTORIA D. DELA CRUZ, JOSE RONILO V. DITCHING JR., PAULO O. HERNANDEZ, ZENNIA S. TURRECHA,
NESTOR J. PORLUCAS, JR. ROGER P. CUARESMA, GABRIELLE ANNE S. ENDONA, JOELLE MAE J. GARCIA, MICAH REGINA A. GONZALES, MA.
CONSOLODA V. BEN, RAPH KEVIN L. SANTOS, CHRISTINE GRACE S. PANAHON, CHEYENNE HOPE DUMLAO, CORINA R. TAMPUS, MARION
PATRICIA L. RODRIGUEZ, CHRISTIAN ERNEST C. BIAGTAN, ELIZABETH MARINO, AIRA MARIELLE GERONIMO, KENNETH ALDWIN M. QUEJADA Page 1 of 20
 intervening mind of another (BOC Employees
Assoc'n v. Teves, 2011).
9. Grant of Immunity to International
Organizations.
There are basically three propositions
underlying the grant of international
immunities to international organizations:
a. International institutions should have a
status which protects them against
control or interference by any one
government in the performance of
functions for the effective discharge of
which they are responsible to
democratically constituted international
bodies in which all the nations
concerned are represented;
b. No country should derive any
national financial advantage by
levying fiscal charges on common
international funds; and
c. The international organization should,
as a collectivity of States members,
be accorded the facilities for the
conduct of its official business
customarily extended to each other by
its individual member States (ICMC v.
Calleja, 1990).
10. Extent of Presidential Immunity.
The President, during his tenure of office,
may not be sued in any civil or criminal case
(Rubrico v. Arroyo, 2010).
11. Legislative Inquiry vis-à-vis question hour
Sec. 21 (Legislative inquiry) specifically
relates to the power to conduct inquiries in aid
of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit
information that may be used for legislation,
while Sec. 22 (question hour) pertains to the
power to conduct a question hour, the
objective of which is to obtain information in
pursuit of Congress’ oversight function
(Senate v. Ermita, 2006).
12. Two-Fold Test for Valid Delegation.
a. Completeness Test - a law is
complete when it sets forth therein the
policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate; and
b. Sufficient Standard Test - when it
provides adequate guidelines or
limitations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegate's authority.
To be sufficient, the standard must
specify the limits of the delegate's
authority, announce the legislative
policy, and identify the conditions
under which it is to be implemented
(Belgica v. Ochoa, 2013, J. Perlas-
Bernabe).
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
13. Pork Barrel System
Pork Barrel System is the collective body
of rules and practices that govern the manner
by which lump-sum, discretionary funds,
primarily intended for local projects, are
utilized through the respective participations
of the Legislative and Executive branches of
government, including its members (Belgica
v. Ochoa, 2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe).
14. Power of Augmentation.
No law shall be passed authorizing any
transfer of appropriations; however, the
President, the President of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and
the heads of Constitutional Commissions
may, by law, be authorized to augment any
item in the general appropriations law for
their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations (Art.
VI, Sec. 25(5)).
15. Cross-border Augmentations from
Savings are Prohibited by the
Constitution.
Funds appropriated for one office are
prohibited from crossing over to another
office even in the guise of augmentation of a
deficient item or items. Thus, we call such
transfers of funds cross-border transfers or
cross- border augmentations. To be sure, the
phrase "respective offices" used in Section
25(5), refers to the entire Executive, with
respect to the President; the Senate, with
respect to the Senate President; the House
of Representatives, with respect to the
Speaker; the Judiciary, with respect to the
Chief Justice; the Constitutional
Commissions, with respect to their respective
Chairpersons (Araullo v. Aquino, 2014).
16. Nature of Legislative Rules.
Legislative rules are not permanent.
Section 16 (3), Article VI of the Constitution
vests in the House of Representatives the
sole authority to, inter alia, “determine the
rules of its proceedings.” These “legislative
rules, unlike statutory laws, do not have the
imprints of permanence and obligatoriness
during their effectivity. In fact, they ‘are
subject to revocation, modification or waiver
at the pleasure of the body adopting them’”
(Baguilat, Jr. v. Alvarez, 2017, J. Perlas-
Bernabe).
17. Congress’ Power to Revoke Declaration
of Martial Law/Suspension of Habeas
Corpus.
The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of
at least a majority of all its Members in regular
or special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the
President (Art. VII, Sec. 18, par. (1)).
The Congress is not constitutionally
mandated to convene in joint session except
to vote jointly to revoke the President’s
Page 2 of 20
 declaration or suspension (Padilla v.
Congress, 2017).
18. Role of the Congress when the President
Proclaims Martial Law and/or Suspends
the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,
viz.:
a. Within 48 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;
b. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote
of at least a majority of all its Members
in regular or special session, may
revoke such proclamation or
suspension, which revocation shall not
be set aside by the President;
c. 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
d. The Congress, if not in session, shall
within 24 hours following such
proclamation or suspension, convene
in accordance with its rules without
need of call (Padilla v. Congress,
2017).
19. Congress’ Power to Extend the Period of
Martial Law and the Suspension of the
Privilege of the Writ Of Habeas Corpus
Sec. 18, Art. VII is silent as to how many
times the Congress, upon the initiative of the
President, may extend the proclamation of
martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of habeas corpus. Such silence, however,
should not be construed as a vacuum, flaw or
deficiency in the provision. Section 18, Article
VII is clear that the only limitations to the
exercise of the congressional authority to
extend such proclamation or suspension are
that the extension should be upon the
President's initiative; that it should be
grounded on the persistence of the invasion
or rebellion and the demands of public safety;
and that it is subject to the Court's review of
the sufficiency of its factual basis upon the
petition of any citizen (Lagman v. Pimentel III,
2018, Covered Case).
20. Scope of Parliamentary Immunity
a. Utterances made by Congressmen in
the performance of their official
functions, such as speeches delivered,
statements made, or votes cast in the
halls of Congress, while the same is in
session;
b. Bills introduced in Congress, whether
the same is in session or not; and
c. Other acts performed by
Congressmen, either in Congress or
outside the premises housing its
offices, in the official discharge of their
duties as members of Congress and of
Congressional Committees duly
authorized to perform its functions as
such, at the time of the performance of
the acts in question (Jimenez v.
Cabangbang, 1966).
21. Period of Imprisonment for Contempt
During Inquiries in Aid of Legislation .
Persons who are cited by the Senate in
contempt cannot be detained indefinitely.
The period of imprisonment under the
inherent power of contempt by the Senate
during inquiries in aid of legislation should
only last until the termination of the legislative
inquiry under which the said power is
invoked. The legislative inquiry of the Senate
terminates on two instances:
a. Upon the approval or disapproval of the
Committee Report; or
b. Upon the expiration of one (1)
Congress (Balag v. Senate, 2018).
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
22. Extraordinary Powers of the President .
The President as the Commander-in-
Chief wields the extraordinary powers of:
a. Calling out the armed forces;
b. Suspending the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus; and
c. Declaring martial law (Lagman v.
Medialdea, 2017).
23. "Graduation" of powers refers to
hierarchy based on scope and effect; it
does not refer to a sequence, order, or
arrangement by which the Commander-in-
Chief must adhere to.
The power to choose, initially, which
among these extraordinary powers to wield in
a given set of conditions is a judgment call on
the part of the President (Lagman v.
Medialdea, 2017).
24. The "sufficiency of factual basis test".
The phrase "sufficiency of factual basis"
in Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution
should be understood as the only test for
judicial review of the President's power to
declare martial law and suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus under Section
18, Article VII of the Constitution. The Court
does not need to satisfy itself that the
President's decision is correct, rather it only
needs to determine whether the President's
decision had sufficient factual bases
(Lagman v. Medialdea, 2017).
25. The parameters for determining the
sufficiency of the factual basis for the
declaration of martial law and/or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus.
The parameters for determining the
sufficiency of factual basis are as follows:
Page 3 of 20
 a. Actual rebellion or invasion;
b. Public safety requires it; the first two
requirements must concur; and
c. There is probable cause for the
President to believe that there is actual
rebellion or invasion (Lagman v.
Medialdea, 2017).
26. Requisites for a Valid Transfer of Funds.
a. There is a law authorizing the
President, the President of the Senate,
the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court, and the heads of
the Constitutional Commissions to
transfer funds within their respective
offices;
b. The funds to be transferred are savings
generated from the appropriations for
their respective offices; and
c. The purpose of the transfer is to
augment an existing item in the general
appropriations law for their respective
offices (Araullo v. Aquino, 2014).
27. DAP Constitutionality.
The DAP (Disbursement Acceleration
Program) is a government policy or strategy
designed to stimulate the economy through
accelerated spending. The pooling of savings
pursuant to the DAP, and the identification of
the Program/Activity/Project to be funded
under the DAP did not involve appropriation
in the strict sense because the money had
been already set apart from the public
treasury by Congress through the GAAs. In
such actions, the Executive did not usurp the
power vested in Congress under Section
29(1), Article VI of the Constitution (Araullo v.
Aquino, 2014).
Note: The following acts and practices
under the DAP were UNCONSTITUTIONAL
for being in violation of Section 25(5), Article
VI and the doctrine of separation of powers,
namely:
a. The withdrawal of unobligated
allotments from the implementing
agencies, and the declaration of the
withdrawn unobligated allotments and
unreleased appropriations as savings
prior to the end of the fiscal year
without complying with the statutory
definition of savings contained in the
General Appropriations Acts; and
b. The cross-border transfers of the
savings of the Executive to augment
the appropriations of other offices
outside the Executive (Araullo v.
Aquino, 2015).
28. Constitutionality of Congressional Pork
Barrel.
Congressional Pork Barrel is
unconstitutional because it violates the
following:
(a) Principle of separation of powers;
(b) Principle of non-delegability of
legislative power;
(c) Presidential item-veto power; and
(d) Some aspect of congressional
oversight (Belgica v. Ochoa, 2013, J.
Perlas-Bernabe).
29. Unprogrammed funds may only be
released upon proof that the total
revenues exceeded the target .
Aggregate revenue collection must first
exceed aggregate revenue target as a pre-
requisite to the use of unprogrammed funds,
but the release of unprogrammed funds may
only occur at the end of the fiscal year.
In Araullo v. Aquino (2015):
The Court further DECLARES VOID the
use of unprogrammed funds despite the
absence of a certification by the National
Treasurer that the revenue collections
exceeded the revenue targets for non-
compliance with the conditions provided in
the relevant General Appropriations Acts
(Araullo v. Aquino, 2015).
30. Section 25 of the Transitory Provisions.
Sec. 25 After the expiration in 1991 of the
Agreement between the Republic of the
Philippines and the United States of America
concerning Military Bases, foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities shall not be
allowed in the Philippines except under a
treaty duly concurred in by the Senate
and, when the Congress so requires, ratified
by a majority of the votes cast by the people
in a national referendum held for that
purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the
other contracting State.
The President, however, may enter into
an executive agreement on foreign military
bases, troops, or facilities, if (a) it is not the
instrument that allows the presence of foreign
military bases, troops, or facilities; or (b) it
merely aims to implement an existing law or
treaty (Saguisag v. Ochoa, 2016).
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
31. Clustering by Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC); Unconstitutional.
Nomination by the JBC shall be a
qualification for appointment to the Judiciary;
but this only means that the President cannot
appoint an individual who is not nominated by
the JBC. The power to recommend of the
JBC cannot be used to restrict or limit the
President's power to appoint as the latter's
prerogative to choose someone whom
he/she considers worth appointing to the
vacancy in the Judiciary is still paramount. As
long as in the end, the President appoints
someone nominated by the JBC, the
appointment is valid (Aguinaldo v. Aquino III,
2016).
Page 4 of 20
32. The Concept of Seniority or Order of or extend the all its Members in
Preference. declaration of regular or special
For purposes of appointments to the martial law session
Judiciary, the date the commission has been and/or suspend Art. VII Sec. 18, par.
signed by the President (which is the date the privilege of (1)
appearing on the face of such document) is habeas corpus
the date of the appointment. The earlier the Power of the Concurrence of a
date of the commission of an appointee, President to majority of all the
the more senior he/she is over the other grant amnesty Members of the
subsequent appointees (Aguinaldo v. Congress
Aquino III, 2016). Art. VII Sec. 19, par.
(2)
33. Summary of Voting Requirements under Concurrence of Concurred in by at
the Constitution. the Senate in least 2/3 of all the
Official Action Voting Requirement the President’s Members of the
Election of Majority vote of all of ratification of a Senate.
Senate the members of each treaty or Art. VII Sec. 21
President and house international
Speaker of the Art. VI, Sec. 16 (1) agreements
House of Submission of By a majority vote of all
Representatives report and the members of the
Power to 2/3 of all members of resolution on committee
suspend or each house impeachment Art. XI, Sec. 3 (2)
expel a Member Art. VI, Sec. 16 (3) complaint to
Power of Majority of all House of
Commission on members, but the Representatives
Appointments to Chairman shall not Affirmation or At least 1/3 of all the
rule on the vote, in case of tie override of the members of the House
appointments Art. VI, Sec. 18 Articles of Art. XI, Sec. 3 (3)
Declaration of 2/3 of both Houses in Impeachment
existence of war joint session Conviction in Concurrence of 2/3 of
by Congress assembled, voting the all the Members of the
separately impeachment Senate.
Art. VI, Sec. 23 (1) Art. XI, Sec. 3 (6)
Congress’ 2/3 of all the Members Proposal to 3/4 of all the members
power to of the House from amend or revise Art. XVII, Sec. 1
override where it originated, the Constitution
President’s veto and then 2/3 vote of all by Congress
the Members of the Calling by 2/3 of all its Members
other House Congress of a Art. XVII, Sec. 3
Art. VI, Sec. 27 (1) Constitutional
A law granting Concurrence of a Convention
tax exemptions majority of all the Submitting to Majority of all its
Members of the the electorate Members
Congress. the question of Art. XVII, Sec. 3
Art. VI, Sec. 28 (4) calling of
In case of tie in Majority of all the constitutional
the Presidential Members of both convention by
election Houses of the Congress
Congress, voting
separately.
Art. VII, Sec. 4 (5) BILL OF RIGHTS
Confirmation by Majority vote of all the
Congress of Members of both 34. Rational Basis, Intermediate Review
President’s Houses of the and Strict Scrutiny, Distinguished.
nomination of Congress, voting The Rational Basis applies in cases
Vice President separately. involving economics or social welfare, or to
in case of Art. VII, Sec. 9 any other case not involving a suspect class.
vacancy It demands that the classification reasonably
When the 2/3 vote of both relate to the legislative purpose. Intermediate
President is Houses, voting Review applies when the classification puts a
unable to separately quasi-suspect class at a disadvantage, i.e.
discharge the Art. VII, Sec. 11, par. gender or illegitimacy. The law must not only
powers of his (4) further an important governmental interest
office and be substantially related to that interest,
but the justification for the classification must
Congress’ Voting jointly, by a vote be genuine and must not depend on broad
Power to revoke of at least a majority of generalizations. The Strict Scrutiny review

Page 5 of 20
 applies when classification interferes with a
fundamental right or operates to the peculiar
class disadvantage of a suspect class. The
Government carries the burden to prove that
the classification is necessary to achieve a
compelling state interest, and that it is the
least restrictive means to protect such
interest (Mosqueda v. Pilipino Banana
Growers & Export Association, 2016).
35. Two Aspects of Informational Privacy.
Informational privacy has two aspects:
(1) the right not to have private information
disclosed, and (2) the right to live freely
without surveillance and intrusion. In
determining whether or not a matter is
entitled to the right to privacy, this Court has
laid down a two-fold test: The first is a
subjective test, where one claiming the right
must have an actual or legitimate expectation
of privacy over a certain matter. The second
is an objective test, where his or her
expectation of privacy must be one society is
prepared to accept as objectively reasonable
(Disini v. Secretary of Justice, 2014).
36. Checkpoints are Limited to Visual
Searches; Extensive Search is Allowed
upon finding of or existence of Probable
Cause.
For as long as the vehicle is neither
searched nor its occupants subjected to a
body search, and the inspection of the
vehicle is limited to a visual search, said
routine checks are valid. However, an
extensive search may be conducted on a
vehicle at a checkpoint when law enforcers
have probable cause to believe that the
vehicle's passengers committed a crime or
when the vehicle contains instruments of an
offense. Any evidence obtained will be
subject to the exclusionary principle under
the Constitution (Veridiano v. People, 2017).
37. Content-Neutral and Content-Based
Regulation, Distinguished.
Content-neutral regulation is merely
concerned with the incidents of the speech or
one that merely controls the time, place or
manner of the speech and under well-defined
standards. While content-based regulation is
based on the subject matter of the utterance
or speech. The former is subject to
intermediate test or the O’Brien Test, while
the latter is subject to the clear and present
danger test (Chavez v. Gonzales, 2008).
38. Overbreadth Doctrine and Void-for-
Vagueness Doctrine, Distinguished.
Overbreadth doctrine decrees that a
governmental purpose to control or prevent
activities constitutionally subject to state
regulations may not be achieved by means
which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms. It assumes that individuals
understand what a statute prohibits and
accordingly refrain from that behavior, even
though some of it is protected.
Void-for-vagueness doctrine pertains to
statutes which are too vague and people of
common intelligence would have to guess at
the statute’s meaning and differ as to its
application (Southern Hemisphere
Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism
Council, 2010).
39. As A Rule, Facial Challenge on Penal
Statute Are Prohibited Except When It
Involves Free Speech.
As a general rule, facial challenge on
penal statures are prohibited because facial
challenges are generally applicable only to
free speech, religious and other fundamental
rights. However, as an exception a facial
challenge grounded on void-for-vagueness
doctrine may be allowed when the subject
penal statute encroaches upon the freedom
of expression (Celdran v. People, 2018).
40. Holding of Catholic Masses at the
Basement of Hall of Justice is Merely an
Accommodation, not Establishment .
The holding of Catholic masses at the
basement of the QC Hall of Justice is merely
an accommodation. Establishment entails a
positive action on the part of the State
through the use of government resource with
primary intention of setting up a state religion.
Accommodation, on the other hand, is
passive, where the state without being
entangled, merely gives consideration to its
citizens who want to freely exercise their
religion. Further, the basement of the QC Hall
of Justice is not appropriated, applied or
employed for the sole purpose of supporting
the Roman Catholics (Re: Letter of Tony Q.
Valenciano, 2017).
41. Secretary of Justice is NOT AUTHORIZED
to Issue Hold Departure Order (HDO).
There is no law providing for the authority
of the Secretary of Justice to curtail the
exercise of the right to travel, in the interest
of national security, public safety or public
health. The DOJ cannot also wield police
power since the authority pertains to
Congress. Even if it claims to be exercising
the same as the alter ego of the President, it
must first establish the presence of a definite
legislative enactment evidencing the
delegation of power from its principal.
The power to issue HDO is inherent to the
courts. The courts may issue a HDO against
an accused in a criminal case so that he may
be dealt with in accordance with law. It does
not require legislative conferment or
constitutional recognition; it co-exists with the
grant of judicial power (Genuino v. De Lima,
2018, Covered Case).
Page 6 of 20
42. Court Deliberations are Traditionally
Recognized as Privileged
Communication.
The privilege against disclosure of these
kinds of information/communication is known
as deliberative process privilege. The rule
extends to documents and other
communications which are part of or are
related to the deliberative process.
The requisites are (1) predecisional and
(2) deliberative. A document is predecisional
if they were made in the attempt to reach a
final conclusion. While a material is
deliberative, if it reflects the give-and-take of
the consultative process. The test is whether
disclosure of the information would
discourage candid discussion within the
agency (In Re: Production of Court Records
And Documents, 2012).
43. Certain Information Contained in the
Records of Cases Before the Supreme
Court are Considered Confidential and are
Exempt from Disclosure.
Specifically, the Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court (IRSC) prohibits the
disclosure of (1) the result of the raffle of
cases, (2) the actions taken by the Court on
each case included in the agenda of the
Court's session, and (3) the deliberations of
the Members in court sessions on cases and
matters pending before it (In Re: Production
Of Court Records And Documents, 2012).
44. Rights of Person under Custody and
Rights of Accused, Distinguished.
Before the case is filed in court, but after
having been taken into custody, and on being
interrogated by the police: the continuing
right to remain silent and to counsel, and to
be informed thereof, not to be subjected to
force, violence, threat, intimidation or any
other means which vitiates the free will; and
to have evidence obtained in violation of
these rights rejected.
After the case is filed in court – refuse to
be a witness; not to be prejudiced by such
refusal; testify on his own behalf, subject to
cross-examination; while testifying to refuse
to answer a specific question which tends to
incriminate him (People v. Ayson, 1989).
45. RA No. 9165 Requiring Mandatory,
Random, and Suspicionless Drug Testing
of Students are Constitutional.
The suspicionless drug testing is
constitutional because schools, acting in loco
parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health
and well-being of their students and may
adopt such measures as may reasonably be
necessary to discharge such duty; and
schools have the right to impose conditions
on applicants for admission that are fair, just,
and non-discriminatory. The right to enroll is
not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable,
and equitable requirements (SJS v.
Dangerous Drugs Board, 2008).
46. Drug Testing is Only Allowed When
Person is Arrested for Drug-Related
Cases.
The phrase "a person apprehended or
arrested" in Section 15 applicable to all
persons arrested or apprehended for
unlawful acts, not only under R.A. 9165 but
for all other crimes, is tantamount to a
mandatory drug testing of all persons
arrested for any crime. A mandatory drug
testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to
harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives
of RA 6195. To do so regardless of the crime
or offense for which the arrest is being made
for it would violate the right to privacy and
right against self-incrimination (Dela Cruz v.
People, 2014).
47. The Writ of Habeas Data is not only
Confined to Cases of Extralegal Killings
and Enforced Disappearances .
Habeas data was designed "to safeguard
individual freedom from abuse in the
information age." It is erroneous to limit its
applicability to extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances only. The writ of
habeas data can be availed of as an
independent remedy to enforce one’s right to
privacy, more specifically the right to
informational privacy. The remedies against
the violation of such right can include the
updating, rectification, suppression or
destruction of the database or information or
files in possession or in control of
respondents (Vivares v. St. Theresa’s
College, 2014).
CITIZENSHIP
48. Foundlings are Natural Born Citizen.
Foundlings are considered natural-born
citizens under Philippine law. The provisions
of the 1935 Constitution is silent with no
restrictive language on the citizenship of
foundlings, yet the deliberations show that
the framers intended foundlings to be
covered by the enumeration on natural-born
citizens. Moreover, treaties, international
conventions, and generally accepted
international law principles, all of which the
Philippines adheres to, support the
presumption of natural-born citizenship for
foundlings. Scattered constitutional
provisions relating to welfare of child, equal
protection of the laws and social justice
further buttress this postion (Poe-
Llamanzares v. COMELEC, 2016).
49. There are only Two Types of Citizens:
Natural-Born and Naturalized .
There are only two types of citizens
under the 1987 Constitution: natural-born
Page 7 of 20
 citizen and naturalized, and that there is no
third category for repatriated citizens. The
former "are those citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect his Philippine
citizenship." While the latter are those who
have become Filipino citizens through
naturalization. As to repatriated persons, they
would either be natural- born or naturalized
depending on the reasons for the loss of their
citizenship and the mode prescribed by the
applicable law for the reacquisition thereof
(Bengson III v. HRET, 2001).
50. Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation of
their Foreign Allegiance, Required in
Order to Run for Public Office.
The legal effects of retention and
reacquisition in RA 9225 may be
distinguished as following: Those who were
naturalized in a foreign country lost their
Philippine citizenship under CA 63 prior to RA
9225 and may be reacquired under RA 9225
by taking an oath of allegiance. While those
who became naturalized in a foreign country
retain their Philippine citizenship after the
passage of RA 9225 by taking the same oath
(David v. Agbay, 2015).
LAW ON PUBLIC OFFICERS
51. In Cases of Vacancy in the Sanggunian,
the Successor to be Appointed must be
from the Political Party of the one who
Caused the Last Vacancy.
The reason behind the right given to a
political party to nominate a replacement
where a permanent vacancy occurs in the
Sanggunian is to maintain the party
representation as willed by the people in the
election. The "last vacancy" in the
Sanggunian refers to that created by the
elevation of the member formerly occupying
the next higher in rank which in turn also had
become vacant by any of the causes already
enumerated (Navarro v. CA, 2001).
52. Ad Interim Appointment and Temporary
Appointment, Distinguished.
An ad interim appointment is
permanent and takes effect immediately and
remains effective until such disapproval or
next adjournment. Hence, it is irrevocable
except as provided by law. An appointment
or designation in a temporary or acting
capacity can be withdrawn or revoked at the
pleasure of the appointing power. A
temporary or acting appointee does not enjoy
any security of tenure, no matter how briefly.
This is the kind of appointment that the
Constitution prohibits the President from
making to the three independent
constitutional commissions, including the
COMELEC (Matibag v. Benipayo, 2002).
53. Ad Interim Appointment and Regular
Appointment, Distinguished
Regular Ad Interim
Appointment Appointment
As to When Made
Made during the Made during
legislative session. recess.
Made only after the Made before such
nomination is confirmation.
confirmed by the
CA.
As to Duration
Continues until the Shall cease to be
end of the term of valid if disapproved
the appointee once by the CA or
confirmed by the bypassed by CA or
CA. until the next
adjournment of
Congress.
54. The prohibition on reappointment applies
neither to disapproved nor by-passed ad
interim appointments.
A disapproved ad interim appointment
cannot be revived by another ad interim
appointment because the disapproval is final
under Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution, and not because a
reappointment is prohibited under Section 1
(2), Article IX-C of the Constitution. A by-
passed ad interim appointment can be
revived by a new ad interim appointment
because there is no final disapproval under
Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, and
such new appointment will not result in the
appointee serving beyond the fixed term of
seven years (Matibag v. Benipayo, 2002).
55. Prohibition on midnight appointment
under Section 15, Article VII does not
apply to appointments to fill a vacancy in
the Supreme Court or to other
appointments to the Judiciary .
Midnight appointment is made by the
President or acting president within two (2)
months immediately before the next
presidential elections and up to the end of his
term (Art. VII, Sec. 15), whether or not it is
confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments. The constitutional prohibition
on midnight appointments does not apply to
appointments made to the Judiciary (De
Castro v. JBC, 2010).
56. Arias Doctrine.
All heads of offices have to rely to a
reasonable extent on their subordinates and
on the good faith of those who perform
functions within their power of control or
supervision such as specific clerical or
administrative tasks, or even limited
exercises of discretion (Arias v.
Sandiganbayan, 1989). When infraction
consists in the reliance in good faith, albeit
misplaced, by a head of office on a
Page 8 of 20
 subordinate upon whom the primary
responsibility rests, absent a clear case of
conspiracy, the Arias doctrine must be held
to prevail (Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan, 1995).
57. The Next-in-Rank Rule only Entitles the
Officer Next in Rank to Preferential
Consideration in Promotion.
The Civil Service Act does not
peremptorily require the mayor to promote
the officer next in rank. What it does purport
to say is that as far as practicable the person
next in rank should be promoted, otherwise
the vacancy may be filled by transfer,
reinstatement, reemployment or certification,
as the appointing power sees fit, provided the
appointee is certified to be qualified and
eligible (Pineda v. Claudio, 1969).
58. Impeachable Officers who are Members of
the Bar cannot be Disbarred Without
being Impeached.
An impeachable officer who is a member
of the Bar cannot be disbarred without first
being impeached. As impeachable officers
who are at the same time members of the
Bar, respondents-commissioners must first
be removed from office via the constitutional
route of impeachment before they may be
held to answer administratively for their
supposed erroneous resolutions and actions
(Duque v. Brillantes, 2016).
59. Impeachment Proceeding and Quo
Warranto Proceeding, Distinguished
Impeachment Quo Warranto
As to Issue Involved
Impeachment is for In quo warranto, the
respondent’s cause of action lies
prosecution for on the usurping,
certain intruding, or
impeachable unlawfully holding or
offenses. The exercising of a public
issue is whether or office. The crux of
not he committed the controversy in
impeachable this quo warranto
offenses to warrant proceeding is the
his removal from determination of
office. whether or not
respondent legally
holds the position to
be considered as an
impeachable office
in the first place.
As to the Reliefs Sought
In impeachment, a In quo warranto, the
conviction for the respondent shall be
charges of adjudged to cease
impeachable from holding a public
offenses shall office which he is
result to the ineligible to hold.
removal of the
respondent from
public office that he
is legally holding.
(Republic v. Sereno, 2018).
60. Grounds for Impeachment
a. Culpable violation of the Constitution;
b. Treason;
c. Bribery;
d. Graft and corruption;
e. Other high crimes; or
f. Betrayal of public trust (Art. XI, Sec. 2).
61. Condonation Doctrine, Abandoned.
Election is not a mode of condoning an
administrative offense, and there is simply no
constitutional or statutory basis in our
jurisdiction to support the notion that an
official elected for a different term is fully
absolved of any administrative liability arising
from an offense done during a prior term
(Carpio-Morales v. CA and Binay, 2015, J.
Perlas-Bernabe).
62. Condonation Doctrine is Still Applicable
in Cases that Transpired Prior to the
Carpio-Morales v. CA and Binay Ruling on
November 10, 2015.
The doctrine of condonation was recently
abandoned but such abandonment was
prospective in application. Hence, the
doctrine is still applicable in cases that
transpired prior to the November 10, 2015
ruling of the Supreme Court in Carpio-
Morales vs. CA and Jejomar Binay, Jr. (Office
of the Ombudsman v. Vergara, 2017).
63. Suspension as a Preventive Measure and
as a Penalty, Distinguished.
Preventive suspension is merely a
preliminary step in an administrative
investigation, the purpose of which is to
prevent the officer from using his position and
the powers and prerogatives of his office to
influence potential witnesses or tamper with
records which may be vital in the prosecution
of the case against him. If after such
investigation, the charge is established and
the person investigated is found guilty, then
he may be suspended. This suspension is
now imposed as a penalty (Carpio Morales v.
CA, 2015, J. Perlas-Bernabe).
64. Duration of Preventive Suspension.
Those charged Up to ninety (90)
with violation of days from the
R.A. No. 3019 issuance of the
(Anti-Graft and suspension order
Corrupt Practices
Act)
Those whose Up to ninety (90)
positions are days from the
embraced in the issuance of the
Civil Service (who suspension order,
is not a presidential except where there
appointee) as is delay in the
provided under disposition of the
Sections 3 and 4 of case, which is due to
PD 807 the fault, negligence
or petition of the
respondent, in which
case the period of
Page 9 of 20
 delay shall not be i. The charge against such officer
counted in involves dishonesty, oppression,
computing the or grave misconduct or neglect in
period of the performance of duty;
suspension herein ii. The charges would warrant
stated (PD 807, Sec. removal from the service; or
42). iii. The officer’s continued stay in
Those who have Up to six (6) office may prejudice the case filed
been preventively months from the against him (R.A. No. 6770, Sec.
suspended by the issuance of the 24).
Ombudsman under suspension order,
his authority except when the ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
pending an delay in the
investigation disposition of the 68. Requisites for a Valid Administrative IRRs
case by the (ASAR).
Ombudsman is due a. Its promulgation must be Authorized by
to the fault, the Legislature;
negligence, or b. It must be within the Scope of the
petition of the authority given by the Legislature;
respondent, in which c. It must be promulgated in Accordance
case, the period of with the prescribed procedure; and
such delay shall not d. It must be Reasonable (Lokin v.
be counted in COMELEC, 2010).
computing the
period of 69. CIAC is a quasi-judicial agency.
suspension herein The Construction Industry Arbitration
provided (R.A. No. Commission (CIAC) is a quasi-judicial body,
6770, Sec. 24). the jurisdiction of which is confined to
construction disputes. A quasi-judicial
65. The Primary Jurisdiction of Ombudsman agency is a government body, not part of the
Refers to Criminal Cases, not to judiciary or the legislative branch, which
Administrative Cases. adjudicates disputes and creates rules which
The primary jurisdiction of the affect private parties' rights. It is created by an
Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute enabling statute, and thus, its existence
cases refers to criminal cases cognizable by continues beyond the resolution of a dispute
the Sandiganbayan and not to administrative and is independent from the will of the
cases. It is only in the exercise of its primary parties. Its powers are limited to those
jurisdiction that the Ombudsman may, at any expressly granted or necessarily implied in
time, take over the investigation being the enabling law (Metro Rail Transit Devt.
conducted by another investigatory agency Corp. v. Gammon Philippines, Inc., 2018).
(Pichay, Jr. v. ODESLA, 2012, J. Perlas-
Bernabe).

66. Rotational Scheme is Not Applicable to

the Term of the Ombudsman.
A rotational plan permits subsequent
members of the commission to be
appointable only once every 3 years. With
these periods, it was the intention to have one
position vacant every 3 years, so that no
President can appoint more than one
commissioner, thereby preserving and
safeguarding the independence and
impartiality of the Commission as a body.
Unlike the constitutional commissions in the
1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman and the
deputies do not make a collegial body thus,
making it implausible to apply the regular
rotation or cycle in its membership (Ifurung v.
Carpio-Morales, 2018).

67. Two Requisites for Issuance by the

Ombudsman of a Preventive Suspension
Order.
a. The evidence of guilt is strong based
on the Ombudsman’s judgment; and
b. Any of the three instances are present:

Page 10 of 20
70. Nature of arbitration under a quasi-
Petition for Petition for
judicial body.
Inclusion Exclusion
Arbitration under a quasi-judicial body is
(R.A. 8189, Sec. (R.A. 8189, Sec. 35)
similar to commercial arbitration in that its
34)
factual findings are generally accorded
respect and finality. However, commercial Any person whose Any registered voter,
arbitration is conducted by ad-hoc bodies application for representative of a
created by stipulation of parties for the registration has political party or the
purpose of settling disputes concerning their been disapproved Election Officer, may
private or proprietary interests. In general, by the Board or file with the court a
the findings in commercial arbitration are whose name has sworn petition for the
respected to uphold the autonomy of arbitral been stricken out
exclusion of a voter
awards (Metro Rail Transit Devt. Corp. v. from the list may file
from the permanent
Gammon Philippines, Inc., 2018). with the court a
petition to include list of voters giving
his name in the the name, address and
71. Administrative Res Judicata.
permanent list of the precinct of the
The rule which forbids the reopening of a
voters in his challenged voter.
matter once judicially determined by
competent authority applies as well to the precinct.
judicial and quasi-judicial facts of public,
executive or administrative officers and 75. Overseas Absentee Voting is
boards acting within their jurisdiction as to the Constitutional.
judgments of courts having general judicial A law that allows absentees to vote
powers. Thus, forum shopping, in the despite not being physically present in the
concept of res judicata, is applicable to Philippines is not unconstitutional. The
judgments or decisions of administrative strategic location of Section 2 of Article V of
agencies performing judicial or quasi-judicial the Constitution indicates that the
functions (Malixi v. Baltazar, 2017). Constitutional Commission provided for an
exception to the actual residency
72. Doctrine of administrative exhaustion requirement of Section 1 with respect to
applies only to the exercise of quasi- qualified Filipinos abroad. Absentee voting
judicial power. and Detainee voting is an exception to the
The doctrine of exhaustion of general rule that a person must be physically
administrative remedies applies only to present in the polling place whereof he is a
judicial review of decisions of administrative registered voter to be able to vote (Macalintal
agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial v. COMELEC, 2003).
power. It has no application to their exercise
of rule-making power (Holy Spirit 76. Who is a Detainee Voter.
Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Defensor, A detainee is understood to be any
2006). person: (CSD)

a. Confined in jail, formally charged for

ELECTION LAW
73. Biometrics Validation is not an Additional
Qualification, but a Mere Aspect of
Registration Procedure.
Biometrics validation is not a qualification
to the exercise of the right of suffrage, but a
mere aspect of the registration procedure, of
which the State has the right to reasonably
regulate. The act of registering is only one
step towards voting, and it is not one of the
elements that makes the citizen a qualified
voter and one may be a qualified voter
without exercising the right to vote.
(Kabataan Partylist v. COMELEC, 2015, J.
Perlas-Bernabe).
74. Petition for Inclusion and Petition for
Exclusion, Distinguished.
any crime/s and awaiting/undergoing
trial;
b. Serving a sentence of imprisonment for
less than one (1) year; or
c. Whose conviction of a crime involving
Disloyalty to the duly constituted
government such as rebellion, sedition,
violation of the firearms laws or any
crime against national security or for
any other crime is on appeal
(COMELEC Resolution No. 9371, Rule
1, Sec. 2(1)).
77. Detainee Voters may Only Vote in the
National Elections.
In compliance with the Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the
Supreme Court last 19 April 2016, detainee
voters may only vote for candidates for the
national position (Aguinaldo v. New Bilibid
Prison, 2016).

78. Nominees of Party-lists for the Youth

Sector must not be More than Thirty (30)
Years Old at the Election Day.
In case of a nominee of the youth sector,
he must at least be 25 but not more than 30

Page 11 of 20
 years of age on the day of the election. Any 82. Effect of Filing of COC of Incumbent
youth sectoral representative who attains the Appointive and Elective Officials
age of 30 during his term shall be allowed to Appointive officials Elective officials
continue in office until the expiration of his
term (R.A. No. 7941, otherwise known as the Officials holding An elective official
Partylist System Act, Sec. 9, Par. 2). appointive offices, may run for another
including active position without
79. Change of affiliation of a partylist members of AFP and forfeiting his seat
nominee.
officers of (R.A. No. 9006,
Any elected party-list representative who
government-owned otherwise known as
changes his political party or sectoral
or controlled the Fair Election Act,
affiliation during his term of office shall forfeit
corporations shall be Sec. 14). Hence, he is
his seat: Provided, That if he changes his
considered ipso not deemed resigned
political party or sectoral affiliation within 6
facto resigned upon upon the filing of his
months before an election, he shall not be
the filing of his COC.
eligible for nomination as party-list
certificate of
representative under his new party or
candidacy (OEC,
organization ( Sec. 15, RA 7941).
Sec. 66).
80. Nuisance Candidates.
A nuisance candidate is a person who 83. A Candidate who was Disqualified under
files his COC: (1) to put the election process Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code may
in mockery or disrepute; or (2) to cause be Validly Substituted.
confusion among the voters by the similarity A candidate who is disqualified under
of the names of the registered candidates, or Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code
(3) by other circumstances or acts which (OEC) can be validly substituted pursuant to
clearly demonstrate that the candidate has Section 77 of OEC because he remains a
no bona fide intention to run for the office for candidate until disqualified; in a
disqualification case, there remains to be a[n]
which the certificate of candidacy has been
[eligible and qualified] candidate to be
filed and thus prevent a faithful determination
substituted, although his or her candidacy is
of the true will of the electorate (OEC, Sec. discontinued [due to the commission of acts
69). constituting grounds for disqualification]
(Tagolino v. HRET, 2013, J. Perlas-
81. Votes Cast in Favor of a Nuisance Bernabe)
Candidate are NOT Stray Votes, and are
Tallied in Favor of the Bona Fide 84. A Candidate whose COC has been Denied
Candidate. Due Course and/or Cancelled Under Sec.
Votes cast for a nuisance candidate 78 of the Omnibus Election Code May NOT
should be counted in favor of the bona fide be Validly Substituted.
candidate because the possibility of A person whose COC has been denied
confusion in names of candidates if the due course to and/or cancelled under Section
names of nuisance candidates remained on 78 of OEC cannot be substituted because he
the ballots on election day, cannot be is not considered a candidate. Since there
discounted or eliminated, especially would be no candidate to speak of under a
considering that voters who mistakenly denial of due course to and/or cancellation of
a COC case, then there would be no
shaded the oval beside the name of the
candidate to be substituted (Tagolino v.
nuisance candidate instead of the bona fide
HRET, 2013, J. Perlas-Bernabe).
candidate they intended to vote for could no
longer ask for replacement ballots to correct 85. COMELEC has Ministerial Duty to Receive
the same (Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, 2012). and Acknowledge Receipt of Certificates
However, if there are two or more bona fide of Candidacy.
candidates with the same name and/or The COMELEC shall have the ministerial
surname as the nuisance candidate, the duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of
votes cast for the nuisance candidate shall be the certificates of candidacy (OEC, Sec. 76).
considered as stray votes (COMELEC However, COMELEC may go beyond the
Resolution No. 9599, 2012). face of the COC in cases of:
a. Denying due course and/or cancelling
COCs due to material misrepresentation
under Sec. 78 of OEC;
b. Denying due course and/or cancelling
COCs of nuisance candidates under Sec.
69 of OEC; and
c. Disqualification cases on grounds
enumerated under Sec. 68 of OEC.

Page 12 of 20
86. COMELEC En Banc is not a Tribunal of decided by trial courts (Art. VI, Sec.
First Instance. of general jurisdiction, 17).
The COMELEC sitting en banc does or involving elective 2. The President
NOT have the requisite authority to hear and barangay officials and Vice
decide election cases in the first instance. decided by the trial President in
This power pertains to the divisions of the courts of limited case of the PET
Commission. Any decision by the jurisdiction (Art. IX-C, (Art. VII, Sec. 4).
Commission en banc as regards election Sec. 2)
cases decided by it in the first instance is null As to Extent of Jurisdiction
and void (Sarmiento v. COMELEC, 1992). Before the The jurisdiction of
proclamation of the the PET and the SET
87. COMELEC En Banc is NOT an Appellate winning presidential, can only be invoked
Tribunal to the COMELEC Sitting in vice-presidential and once the winning
Divisions. senatorial candidates presidential, vice-
While the Constitution grants COMELEC (BANAT v. COMELEC, presidential or
appellate jurisdiction, it is clear that such 2009). senatorial
appellate jurisdiction operates as a review by candidates have
the COMELEC of decisions of trial courts. been proclaimed
There is really no appeal within the (BANAT v.
COMELEC itself (Mendoza v. COMELEC, COMELEC, 2009).
2010). Hence, a judgment or final order or
resolution of the COMELEC may be brought 90. Petition to Deny Due Course and/or
by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court Cancel COC and Petition for
on certiorari under Rule 65 but only within Disqualification, Distinguished.
thirty (30) days from the notice of judgment or
resolution sought to be reviewed (RULES OF Petition to Deny Due Petition for
COURT, Rule 64, Sec. 2). Course to or to Disqualification
Cancel COC
88. COMELEC’s Jurisdiction over Intra-Party
As to Period of Filing
Disputes.
General Rule: Political parties are If filed under Sec. 78 Any day after the last
generally free to conduct their activities, of the OEC, it must be day for filing of
including their leadership controversies, filed within 25 days certificates of
without interference from the state. from the filing of the candidacy, but not
Exception: The COMELEC may resolve COC. However, if later than the date of
an intra-party leadership dispute, in a proper brought under Sec. proclamation.
case brought before it, as an incident of its 69, it must be filed
power to register political parties. within 5 days from the
Specifically, the COMELEC’s powers and last day of filing of the
functions under Section 2, Article IX-C of the COC.
Constitution, "include the ascertainment of As to Grounds
the identity of the political party and its Material When declared by
legitimate officers responsible for its acts”, misrepresentation in final decision of a
and in another case, the COMELEC’s power the COC (Sec. 78), or competent court,
to register political parties necessarily nuisance candidacy guilty of, or found by
involved the determination of the persons (Sec. 69) the Commission to
who must act on its behalf (Reyes v. HRET, be suffering from any
2010). disqualification
provided by law or
89. COMELEC and HRET/SET/PET the Constitution may
Jurisdiction, Distinguished. be disqualified.
As to Substitution
COMELEC SET/HRET
Not allowed Allowed
PET
As to Jurisdiction As to Effect
It has exclusive original The sole judge of all Candidate with the Rule of succession
jurisdiction over all contests relating to second highest shall be observed.
contests relating to the the election, returns number of votes shall
elections, returns, and and qualifications of assume office.
qualifications of all 1. the members of
elective regional, the Senate in 91. When may a Second Placer be Proclaimed
provincial, and city case of the SET, as Winner.
officials, and and the If the certificate of candidacy was void
appellate jurisdiction members of the from the beginning, it does not matter that the
over all contests House of disqualification case was finally decided
involving elective Representatives before or after the election. The person was
municipal officials in case of HRET

Page 13 of 20
 never a candidate, hence, there was composed of one or more islands. There
technically no second placer. The candidate appears neither rhyme nor reason why this
who actually obtained the second highest exemption should apply to cities and
number of votes can be proclaimed as the municipalities, but not to provinces. The
winner (Diambrang v. COMELEC, 2016). inclusion in the IRR was intended to correct
Hence, when the COC of the first placer was the congressional oversight in Sec. 461 of the
denied due course and/or cancelled under LGC and to reflect the true legislative intent
Sec. 69 or 78, the second placer in the (Navarro v. Ermita, 2011).
elections may be proclaimed as winner.
95. Land area is not a requisite indicator of
92. When may a Second Placer NOT be viability in creation of barangay.
Proclaimed as Winner. However, with respect to the creation of
The second placer cannot be proclaimed municipalities, component cities, and
the winner if the first placer is disqualified, in provinces, the 3 indicators of viability and
such a manner that that the COC of the first projected capacity to provide services, i.e.,
placer was valid at the time of the filing but income, population, and land area, are
subsequently had to be cancelled because of provided for (Navarro v. Ermita, 2011).
a violation of law that took effect, or a legal
impediment that took effect, after the filing of 96. Requisites for a Valid Ordinance.
the COC (Jalosjos v. COMELEC, 2012). It is settled that an ordinance's validity
shall be upheld if the following requisites are
93. Election Protest and Quo Warranto, present: First, the local government unit must
Distinguished. possess the power to enact an ordinance
covering a particular subject matter and
Election Protest Quo Warranto according to the procedure prescribed by
As to Issue law. Second, the ordinance must not
It is strictly a contest It refers to contravene the fundamental law of the land,
or an act of the legislature, or must not be
between the defeated questions of
against public policy or must not be
and winning candidates, disloyalty or
unreasonable, oppressive, partial,
based on grounds of ineligibility of the discriminating or in derogation of a common
election frauds or winning right (Evasco v. Montañez, 2018; Mosqueda
irregularities, as to who candidate. It is a v. Pilipino Banana Growers and Exporters
actually obtained the proceeding to Association, Inc., 2016).
majority of the legal unseat the
votes and therefore is ineligible person 97. Vice Governor as presiding officer should
entitled to hold the from office, but be counted for purposes of ascertaining
office. not to install the the existence of a quorum but not in the
protestant in his determination of the required number of
place. votes necessary to uphold a matter.
The Vice Governor, as the Presiding
As to Who May File
Officer, shall be considered a part of the
Can only be filed by a Can be filed by Sangguniang Panlalawigan for purposes of
candidate who has duly any voter. It is for ascertaining if a quorum exists. In
filed a certificate of this reason that it determining the number which constitutes as
candidacy and has is not considered the majority vote, the Vice Governor is
been voted for. a contest where excluded. The Vice Governor’s right to vote
the parties strive is merely contingent and arises only when
for supremacy. there is a tie to break (Javier v. Cadiao,
As to Effect on the Parties 2016).
A protestee may be While the
98. All qualified registered voters of the
ousted and either the respondent may
political units directly affected can
protestant or the be unseated, the
participate in the plebiscite called for the
protestee’s lawful petitioner will not conversion of a component city into an
successor shall be be seated. HUC.
seated in the office The phrase “by the qualified voters
vacated. therein” in Sec. 453 of the LGC means the
(Luison v. Garcia, 1958) qualified voters not only in the city proposed
to be converted to an HUC but also the voters
of the political units directly affected by such
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS conversion in order to harmonize Sec. 453
with Sec. 10, Art. X of the Constitution (Umali
94. Land requirement for the creation of a v. COMELEC, 2014).
province does not apply to group of
islands.
The land area requirement shall not
apply where the proposed province is

Page 14 of 20
99. Jurisdiction over Settlement of Boundary
Disputes.
There is a boundary dispute when a
portion or the whole of the territorial area of a
Local Government Unit (LGU) is claimed by
two (2) or more LGUs. Said dispute shall be
referred to the Sangguniang Panglungsod or
Sangguniang Bayan concerned. By virtue of
the LGC, the RTC lost its power to try, at the
first instance, cases of boundary disputes,
and it is only when the intermediary steps
have failed that resort to the RTC will follow
as provided in the laws (Brgy. Mayamot,
Antipolo City v. Antipolo City, 2016).
103. Requisites for the Three-Term Limit Rule.
To constitute a disqualification to run for
an elective local office, the following
requisites must concur: 1) that the official
concerned has been elected for three
consecutive terms in the same local
government post; and 2) that he has fully
served three consecutive terms (Abundo v.
COMELEC, 2013).

100. The prohibition on midnight

appointments applies only to presidential
appointments.
The constitutional prohibition on so-
called “midnight appointments,” specifically
those made within two (2) months
immediately prior to the next presidential
elections, applies only to the President or
Acting President. There is no law that
prohibits local elective officials from making
appointments during the last days of his or
her tenure (De Rama v. CA, 2001).

101. Withholding of a portion of LGUs’ IRA

cannot be directed by administrative fiat.
A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is
the automatic release of the shares of LGUs
in the national internal revenue. This is
mandated by no less than the Constitution
and the LGC. Section 4 of AO 372, however,
orders the withholding of 10% of the LGUs'
IRA "pending the assessment and evaluation
by the Development Budget Coordinating
Committee of the emerging fiscal situation" in
the country. Such withholding clearly
contravenes the Constitution and the law.
Although temporary, it is equivalent to a
holdback, which means "something held
back or withheld, often temporarily.” Hence,
the "temporary" nature of the retention by the
national government does not matter. Any
retention is prohibited as it effectively
encroaches on the fiscal autonomy of local
governments (Pimentel v. Aguirre, 2000).

102. Two groups of LGUs enjoy

decentralization in distinct ways.
The decentralization of power has been
given to the regional units (namely, the
Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao
[ARMM] and the constitutionally-mandated
Cordillera Autonomous Region [CAR]).

The other group of LGUs (i.e., provinces,

cities, municipalities and barangays) enjoy
the decentralization of administration. It is to
be underscored, however, that the
decentralization of power in favor of the
regional units is not unlimited but involves
only the powers enumerated by Section 20,
Article X of the 1987 Constitution and by the
acts of Congress (Mandanas v. Ochoa,
2018).

Page 15 of 20
 Summary of Three-Term Limit Rule.
Cause Effect
Considered an
interruption
Assumption of Office by
Operation of Law (e.g. Not a voluntary
Succession) renunciation of prior
office
Service on the remaining
term not counted in the 3-
term bar
Recall Election
Not considered an
Conversion of
interruption
Municipality to City
Not considered an
Preventive Suspension interruption
If unseated during the
same term; considered
an interruption
If unseated after the
service of the full term;
not considered an
Election Protest interruption
The period served by the
unseated officer is
considered an
interruption to the service
of the duly proclaimed
winner
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND 105. Mining claim vis-à-vis mining patent.
PATRIMONY
104. Meaning of ‘Natural Resources’.
The term “natural resources,” under Art.
XII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, includes
mineral lands of the public domain, but not
mineral lands which at the time the provision
took effect no longer formed part of the public
domain. The legal effect of a valid location of
a mining claim is not only to segregate the
area from the public domain, but to grant to
106. Service Contracts Allowed under 1987
the locator the beneficial ownership of the
claim and the right to a patent therefor upon
compliance with the terms and conditions
prescribed by law.
Note: Mining rights acquired under the
Philippine Bill of 1902 and prior to the
effectivity of the 1935 Constitution were
vested rights that could not be impaired even
by the Government (Yinlu Bicol Mining Corp.
v. Trans-Asia Oil and Development Energy
Corp., 2015).
Reason
To count as a term, one must have both been
elected for the term and serve such term fully
(Borja v. Comelec, 1998).
Law allows the severance to effectuate
succession (Montebon v. COMELEC, 2008).
Interruption of term by defeat in a preceding
recall election shall prevent such term from
being counted (Adormeo v. COMELEC,
2002).
Non-participation in the preceding regular
election but winning in the recall election after
does not count as election to a regular term for
the purposes of the rule (Socrates v.
COMELEC, 2002).
No break in service as local chief executive
(Latasa v. COMELEC, 2003).
Suspended officer continues to hold the
position, but only barred from dispensing its
functions (Aldovino Jr. v. COMELEC, 2009).
Not deemed elected for the said term
(Lonzanida v. COMELEC, 1999).
Managed to serve the term from start to finish
(Ong v. Alegre, 2006).
The proclaimed winner was deemed a private
citizen warming his heels while awaiting the
outcome of his protest (Abundo v. COMELEC,
2013).
The term mining claim connotes a parcel
of land containing a precious metal in its soil
or rock. It is usually used in mining jargon as
synonymous with the term location, which
means the act of appropriating a mining claim
on the public domain according to the
established law or rules. A mining patent
pertains to a title granted by the government
for the said mining claim (Yinlu Bicol Mining
Corp. v. Trans-Asia Oil and Development
Energy Corp., 2015).
Constitution.
The phrase “agreements involving either
technical or financial assistance,” referred to
in paragraph 4, Sec. 2, Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution are in fact service contracts. But
unlike those contemplated by the 1973
Constitution, the new ones are between
foreign corporations acting as contractors on
the one hand; and on the other, the
government as principal or “owner” of the
works. In the new service contracts, the
Page 16 of 20
 foreign contractors provide capital,
technology and technical know-how, and
managerial expertise in the creation and
operation of large-scale mining/extractive
enterprises; and the government, through its
agencies, actively exercises control and
supervision over the entire operation (La
Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assoc., et al. v.
Secretary, DENR, et al., 2004).
107. If merely financial or technical assistance
agreements are allowed, there would be
no need to limit them to large-scale
mining operations, as there would be far
greater need for them in the smaller-scale
mining activities (and even in non-mining
areas).
The provision (Sec. 2, Art. XII) was
intended to refer to agreements other than
those for mere financial or technical
assistance. In like manner, there would be no
need to require the President of the Republic
to report to Congress, if only financial or
technical assistance agreements are
involved. Such agreements are in the nature
of foreign loans that - - pursuant to Sec. 20 of
Art. VII of the Constitution - - the President
may contract or guarantee, merely with the
prior concurrence of the Monetary Board. In
turn, the Board is required to report to
Congress within 30 days from the end of
every quarter of the calendar year, not thirty
days after the agreement is entered into (La
Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assoc., et al. v.
Secretary, DENR, et al., 2004).
108. While the Constitution mandates the State
to exercise full control and supervision
over the exploitation of mineral
resources, nowhere does it require the
government to hold all exploration
permits and similar authorizations.
In fact, there is no prohibition at all
against foreign or local corporations or
contractors holding exploration permits. an
exploration permit merely grants to a
qualified person the right to conduct
exploration for all minerals in specified areas.
Such a permit does not amount to an
authorization to extract and carry off the
mineral resources that may be discovered
(La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assoc., et al. v.
Secretary, DENR, et al., 2004).
109. Financial Benefits for Foreigners not
Forbidden by the Constitution.
The Constitution has never prohibited
foreign corporations from acquiring and
enjoying "beneficial interest" in the
development of Philippine natural resources.
The State itself need not directly undertake
exploration, development, and utilization
activities. Alternatively, the Constitution
authorizes the government to enter into joint
venture agreements (JVAs), co-production
agreements (CPAs) and mineral production
sharing agreements (MPSAs) with
contractors who are Filipino citizens or
corporations that are at least 60% Filipino-
owned (La Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assoc., et al.
v. Secretary, DENR, et al., 2004).
110. Conditions for the Execution by President
of Service Contracts.
Such service contracts may be entered
into only with respect to minerals,
petroleum and other mineral oils. The
grant thereof is subject to several
safeguards, among which are these
requirements:
a. The service contract shall be crafted
in accordance with a general law
that will set standard or uniform
terms, conditions and requirements,
presumably to attain a certain
uniformity in provisions and avoid the
possible insertion of terms
disadvantageous to the country.
b. The President shall be the
signatory for the government
because, supposedly before an
agreement is presented to the
President for signature, it will have
been vetted several times over at
different levels to ensure that it
conforms to law and can withstand
public scrutiny.
c. Within thirty days of the executed
agreement, the President shall
report it to Congress to give that
branch of government an opportunity
to look over the agreement and
interpose timely objections, if any (La
Bugal-B’laan Tribal Assoc., et al. v.
Secretary, DENR, et al., 2004; see
Art. XII, Sec. 2, par. (4) and (5)).
111. Meaning of “Capital” under Art. XII, Sec.
11.
60% Filipino-owned "capital" required in
the Constitution is "full beneficial ownership
of 60% of the outstanding capital stock,
coupled with 60% of the voting rights must
rest in the hands of Filipino nationals" (Roy
III v. Herbosa, 2017).
EDUCATION
112. Admission to an institution of higher
learning is discretionary upon a school,
the same being a privilege on the part of the
student rather than a right. While under the
Education Act of 1982, students have a right
"to freely choose their field of study, subject
to existing curricula and to continue their
course therein up to graduation," such right is
subject, as all rights are, to the established
academic and disciplinary standards laid
down by the academic institution (Ateneo de
Manila University v. Capulong, 1993).
113. Academic freedom or, to be precise, the
institutional autonomy of universities and
institutions of higher learning, has been
enshrined in our Constitution. There are four
Page 17 of 20
 essential freedoms of a university, to wit: to Treaty Executive
determine for itself on academic grounds (1) Agreement
who may teach, (2) what may be taught, (3)
how it shall be taught, and (4) who may be Formal documents Become binding
admitted to study (Cudia v. Superintendent of which require through executive
the PMA, 2015). ratification with the action without the
approval of 2/3 of need of a vote by the
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW the Senate. Senate or by
Congress.
114. Obligations Erga Omnes.
Obligations “towards all,” are obligations International Merely involve
which, by virtue of their nature and agreements arrangements on the
importance, are the concern of all States and involving political implementation of
for whose protection all States have legal issues, or changes of existing policies,
interest (Belgium v. Spain ICJ 1, 1970). national policy, or rules, laws, or
permanent agreements. They are
115. Jus Cogens Norms. international concluded (1) to
Means “compelling law,” are deemed arrangements adjust the details of a
peremptory and non-derogable norms. When (Commissioner of treaty; (2) pursuant to
applied to international crimes, jus cogens Customs v. Eastern or upon confirmation
crimes have been deemed so fundamental to Sea Trading, 1961) by an act of the
the existence of a just international legal Legislature; or (3) in
order that states cannot derogate from them, the exercise of the
even by agreement (BAYAN MUNA v.
President's
Romulo, 2011).
independent powers
116. Ex Aequo et bono. under the
Literally means “according to right and Constitution.
good” or “from equity and good conscience,”
On the same level as Does not attain the
are judgments based on considerations of
statute level of, and cannot
fairness and not of existing law (Brownlie,
2003). The ICJ may only decide a case ex amend a statute
aequo et bono when parties agree to (ICJ (Gonzales v.
Statute, Art. 38(2)). Hechanova, 1968).

If there is an Executive
117. Customary International Law, Elements.
irreconcilable agreements that are
a. State Practice - There must be
conflict, a later law or inconsistent with
evidence of substantial uniformity of
treaty takes either a law or a treaty
practice by a substantial number of
precedence over one are considered
States. Within the period in question,
that is prior. ineffective.
State practice, should have been both
extensive and virtually uniform (Saguisag v. Ochoa, 2016).
b. Opinio Juris - the belief that the
practice is rendered obligatory by the 120. Associative Relation of State.
existence of a rule requiring it; the An associative relation is one where two
States concerned must therefore feel states of unequal power voluntarily establish
that they are conforming to what durable links. In the basic model, one state,
amounts to a legal obligation (North the associate, delegates certain
Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, ICJ responsibilities to the other, the principal,
Reports 1969). while maintaining its international status as a
state. It is usually a transitional device for
118. Hard Law and Soft Law, Distinguished. former colonies to full independence. An
Hard law are binding rules of associated state is not recognized under our
international law while soft laws are non- Constitution (The Province of North Cotabato
binding norms, principles, and practices that et al. v. The Government of the Republic of
influence state behavior (Pharmaceutical and the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral
Healthcare Association v. Duque III, 2007). Domain, 2008).

119. Treaty and Executive Agreement. 121. State Responsibility.

Under international law, the distinction
between a treaty and an international
agreement or even an executive agreement
is irrelevant for purposes of determining
international rights and obligations (Saguisag
v. Ochoa, 2016).
There is an internationally wrongful act of
a State consisting of its act or omission:
a. Is attributable to the State under
international law;
b. Constitutes a breach of an international
obligation (ARSIWA, Art. 2).

Page 18 of 20
 122. Refugee.
Any person who, owing to well-founded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion, is
outside the country of his nationality and is
unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
avail himself of the protection of that country;
or who, not having a nationality and being
outside the country of his former habitual
residence as a result of such events, is
unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
return to it (1967 Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees, Sec. 2; in relation to the
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of the
Refugee, Art. 1, Sec. A, par.2; DOJ Circular
No. 058-12, Sec. 1 (d)).
123. Non-refoulement.
It is a principle which prohibits
Contracting States to expel or return
(“refouler”) a refugee in any manner
whatsoever to the frontiers of territories
where his life or freedom would be
threatened on account of his race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social
group or political opinion (1951 Refugee
Convention, Art. 33(1)).
124. Extradition.
The removal of an accused from the
requested state with the object of placing him
at the disposal of foreign authorities to enable
the requesting state or government to hold
him in connection with any criminal
investigation directed against him or the
execution of a penalty imposed on him under
the penal or criminal law of the requesting
state or government (PD 1069, Philippine
Extradition Law, Art. 2(a)).
It is neither a criminal nor civil
proceeding, but is sui generis with the object
of preventing the escape of a person accused
or convicted of a crime and to secure his
return to the state from which he fled, for the
purpose of trial or punishment (Government
of Hong Kong v Olalia, 2007).
125. Double Criminality.
Under this doctrine, the subject offense
of extradition must be punishable in the
jurisdictions of both the requested and
requesting parties (Government of Hong
Kong v. Munoz, 2016).
126. Government of Hongkong v. Munoz,
2016.
Extradition of Munoz was requested by
the Government of Hong Kong for the crime
of “accepting an advantage as an agent” –
generally a crime of bribing a private
individual. The Supreme Court ruled that
there is no equivalent crime in our jurisdiction
(the closes being “corrupt practices of
officers” under Sec. 3 of RA 3019).
Therefore, the principle of double criminality
was not present. Extradition was not granted.
127. Withdrawal from International Criminal
Court.
By written notification addressed to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, and
shall take effect one year from the date of
receipt of the notification unless a later date
is specified (Rome Statue, Art. 127).
128. Principle of Complementarity.
Primary Jurisdiction over international
crimes rests at the first instance with the state
where the crime was committed; secondarily,
with the ICC in appropriate situations when
the State is unwilling or unable to prosecute
or investigate the crime (BAYAN MUNA vs
Romulo, 2011).
129. Effects of Postliminy.
Judicial acts and proceedings which are
not of political complexion remained good
and valid after the liberation or reoccupation
of the Philippines by American and Filipino
forces (Co Kim Chan vs. Valdez Tan Keh,
1945).
130. Republic of the Philippines v. People’s
Republic of China.
Jurisdiction of PCA. The Tribunal
recognized that both China and the
Philippines are parties to UNCLOS thereby
making them bound to the provisions thereof.
Art. 9 of Annex VII does not deprive the PCA
of jurisdiction despite China’s refusal to
participate. The proceeding does not involve
ruling on territorial sovereignty nor is it prayed
for by the Philippines.
Nine-dash line. China’s claim to the
nine-dash line is incompatible with the
allocation of maritime rights in the UNCLOS.
Whatever claims it had were extinguished
when the UNCLOS entered into force to the
extent that they were incompatible with the
maritime zones.
Rocks and Islands. All high-tide
features in Spratly Islands are “rocks” that
have limited maritime zones. They cannot
have exclusive economic zones or
continental shelves. To be considered as an
island capable of generating maritime zones
(Art. 121 of UNCLOS provides only islands
generate their own exclusive economic zone
or continental shelf), it must be capable of
sustaining human habitation or economic life.
Low-tide elevation: feature that is
exposed at low tide but covered with water at
high tide.
Submerged features: features that are
fully submerged, even at low tide.
Page 19 of 20
131. Maritime Zones. continental
Zones Definition or Rights shelf”.
Breadth
Extended ECS is a term Sovereign
Internal Those waters Exercise of Continental of rights for the
Water which lie sovereignty Shelf convenience purpose of
landward of (UNCLOS III, (ECS) referring to exploring it
the baseline Art. 2) that portion of and its
which the entire natural
include: continental resources
shelf that lies (UNCLOS,
a. waters beyond Art. 77)
enclosed by 200nm from
straight the baseline
baselines, but up to the
b. estuaries, outer limits of
350nm from
c. landward the baseline
waters from or 100nm
the closing from the
line of bays; 2500meter
isobath set in
d. parts of the
Art.76 (5).
sea along the
coast down
to the low- 132. Principle of Good Neighborliness.
water mark, States have the responsibility to ensure that
and activities within their jurisdiction or control do
not cause damage to the environment of
e. Ports and other States or of areas beyond the limits of
harbors national jurisdiction (1992 Rio Declaration on
(UNCLOS III, Environment and Development, Principle 2).
Art. 8(1)).
133. Specialty (Extradition).
Territorial 12nm from Exercise of A person surrendered or extradited may be
Sea the baseline sovereignty tried and punished by the requesting State
only for the offense for which extradition had
Contiguous 24nm from Jurisdiction to
been sought and granted (Government of
Zone the baseline enforce
Hong Kong v. Munoz, 2017).
customs,
fiscal,
immigration
or sanitation
laws

Exclusive 200nm from Sovereign

Economic the baseline right to
Zone explore living
and non-
living
resources
(Magallona v.
Ermita, 2011)

Continental The term Sovereign

Shelf “continental rights for the
shelf” purpose of
includes both exploring it
the 200nm and its
inner natural
continental resources
shelf and also (UNCLOS,
the Art. 77)
“extended

Page 20 of 20