TOPIC

ART. 1 AND 2

The Supremacy of the Constitution

Preamble - Purpose and Effect

Philippine Baseline Law

Doctrine of State Immunity from Suit

Applicability

Suit against the Republic of the Philippines

Suit against Foreign states under the principle of “Sovereign Equality of States”

Suit against the UN and other specialized agencies

Suit against International Organizations

Suit against the Philippines as a State

Suit against Government Officers

GOVERNMENT ULTIMATELY LIABLE

OFFICER ULITIMATELY LIABLE

 Suit against Government agencies

Incorporated-test of suability is found in its CHARTER

Unincorporated

GOVERNMENTAL function

PROPRIETARY

XPN: NECESSARY INCIDENT to its GOVERNMENTAL function

Forms of Consent
Express
General Law

Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1445 *STRICT ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURE*

Must not perpetrate an injustice *ALTHOUGH PROCEDURE IS NOT STRICTLY COMPLIED*

Special Law
Implied
When the State itself commences litigation

When it enters into contract

Suability vs Liability

Suability vs Execution

SEPARATION OF POWERS
Republicanism

Ours is a Government of Laws and Not of Men

Doctrine of Checks and Balances

The Supremacy of the Constitution

Validly exercised by a particular department?

SUPREME COURT determines whether the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department. Conferment o
power is either EXPREES, IMPLIED, INHERENT OR INCIDENTAL
THEN determines whether the act in question had been performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the
constitution
JUSTICIABLE
PRINCIPLE OF NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS

GR: NON-DELEGATION (Potestas Delegata Non Potest Delegare)

XPN: PERMISSIBLE DELEGATIONS (PETAL)

1 Delegation to the
2 Emergency powers of the President
3 Tariff powers of the President
4 Delegation to
5 Delegation to
Tests of Delegation
 Completeness Test

Sufficiency Standard Test

Principle of Sub-delegation of powers

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

SELF-EXECUTING and NON-SELF-EXECUTING
Presumption is SELF-EXECUTORY (PREVAILING RULE): Unless the contrary rule is clearly intended, the provisions
the Constitution should be considered self-executing as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to
determine when, and whether, they shall be effective.
XPN: Expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary

ART XII, SEC. 10 SELF-EXECUTING

ART. 2 NON-SELF-EXECUTING
 ART 2, SEC. 16 SELF-EXECUTING

1 Democratic and Republican

2 Renunciation of war; Doctrine of Incorporation; Adherence to policy of peace, freedom, amity

3 Civilian Supremacy

4 The Defense of the State - Posse Commitatus

5 Maintenance of Peace and Order

6 Separation of Church and State

STATE POLICIES
7 Independent Foreign Policy

8 Nuclear-Free Philippines

9 Just and Dynamic Social Order

10 Promotion of Social Justice

11 Human Dignity and Human Rights

 Family as basic autonomous social institution Protect life of the unborn from conception Primary right and duty o
12
parents

13 Youth

14 Women

15 Right to Health

16 Right to Balance and Healthful Ecology

17 Priority to Education

18 Labor

19 Self-Reliant and Independent National Economy

20 Private Sector

21 Agrarian Reform
22 Indigenous Cultural Communities
23 Non-Governmental Organizations
24 Communications
25 Local Autonomy

26 Equal Access to Public Service; Political Dynasties

28 Full Public Disclosure

CITIZENSHIP
Before the 1935 Constitution

Philippine Bill of 1902 (En Masse Filipinization)

Act 2927 - Naturalization Law of March 26, 1920

Roa Doctrine (re: res judicata)

Policy against Dual Allegiance

 Naturalization
Direct
Judicial naturalization under C.A. 473,
Administrative naturalization under R.A. 9139
Special Act of Legislature
Derivative
1.     wife of naturalized husband
2.     minor children of naturalized person
3.     alien woman upon marriage to a national
Loss of Citizenship
Reacquisition of Citizenship

Under R.A. 2630

Under R.A. 8171

Under R.A. 9225

SUFFRAGE

Suffrage as right and duty

Residence qualification
R.A. 9189 - The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003

R.A. 8189 - Voter's Registration Act of 1996

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Amendment vs. Revision

ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Statement of Policy - Public office is a public trust

Impeachment

Procedure for impeachment

 "CANDLE DOCTRINE"

The Sandiganbayan

The Ombudsman
Ill-gotten Wealth
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth
unity from Suit

epublic of the Philippines

n states under the principle of “Sovereign Equality of States”

N and other specialized agencies

ational Organizations

pines as a State
rnment Officers

NT ULTIMATELY LIABLE

LITIMATELY LIABLE
rnment agencies

-test of suability is found in its CHARTER

GOVERNMENTAL function

PROPRIETARY function

XPN: NECESSARY INCIDENT to its GOVERNMENTAL function

Commonwealth Act 327, as amended by PD 1445 *STRICT ADHERENCE TO PROCEDURE*

Must not perpetrate an injustice *ALTHOUGH PROCEDURE IS NOT STRICTLY COMPLIED*

ate itself commences litigation

rs into contract
vernment of Laws and Not of Men

cks and Balances

of the Constitution

d by a particular department?

OURT determines whether the power has been constitutionally conferred upon the department. Conferment of
er EXPREES, IMPLIED, INHERENT OR INCIDENTAL
mines whether the act in question had been performed in accordance with the rules laid down by the

JUSTICIABLE VS. POLITICAL QUESTIONS

 NOT TRULY POLITICAL QUESTION

NOT TRULY POLITICAL QUESTION

POLITICAL

POLITICAL

ELEGATION OF POWERS

ATION (Potestas Delegata Non Potest Delegare)

SSIBLE DELEGATIONS (PETAL)

Delegation to the People at large
Emergency powers of the President
Tariff powers of the President
Delegation to Administrative Bodies
Delegation to Local Government Units
-delegation of powers

OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY

NCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

G and NON-SELF-EXECUTING
SELF-EXECUTORY (PREVAILING RULE): Unless the contrary rule is clearly intended, the provisions of
should be considered self-executing as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to
, and whether, they shall be effective.
ssly provided that a legislative act is necessary

SELF-EXECUTING

NON-SELF-EXECUTING
 SELF-EXECUTING

Republican

ar; Doctrine of Incorporation; Adherence to policy of peace, freedom, amity

he State - Posse Commitatus

Peace and Order

hurch and State

reign Policy

ic Social Order

and Human Rights

autonomous social institution Protect life of the unborn from conception Primary right and duty of

e and Healthful Ecology

Independent National Economy

ural Communities
ntal Organizations
Public Service; Political Dynasties

Constitution

of 1902 (En Masse Filipinization)

aturalization Law of March 26, 1920

(re: res judicata)

ual Allegiance
 Judicial naturalization under C.A. 473,
Administrative naturalization under R.A. 9139
Special Act of Legislature

1.     wife of naturalized husband

2.     minor children of naturalized person
3.     alien woman upon marriage to a national

Citizenship
s Absentee Voting Act of 2003

tration Act of 1996

PUBLIC OFFICERS

Public office is a public trust

Liabilities and Networth
CASE to Cite JURISPRUDENCE

When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does

Angara v. Electoral Commission
not assert any superiority over the other departments; it does not in
reality nullify or invalidate an act of the legislature, but only asserts the
solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution. This is in
truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which
properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution.

The elevating influence of religion in human society is recognized in the

Aglipay v. Ruiz
Preamble. The same should act as a guide.

The court ruled that whether referred to as Philippine "internal

waters" under Article I of the Constitution or as "archipelagic waters"
under UNCLOS III, the Philippines exercises sovereignty over the
body of water lying landward of the baselines, including the air space over
Magallona v. Ermita
it and the submarine areas underneath. RA 9522 simply seeks to conform
to our international agreement on the setting of baselines and provides
nothing about the designation of archipelagic sea-lane passage or the
regulation of innocent passage within our waters

The State cannot be sued without its consent. A sovereign is

exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or obsolete
Republic v. Villasor theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal
right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right
depends.
A foreign government cannot be sued in the courts of another
Syquia v. Almeda state without its consent under the principle of sovereign equality of
States. Par in parem non habet imperium.
A foreign agent, operating within a territory, can be cloaked with
immunity from suit as long as it can be established that he is acting
Minucher v. CA within the directives of the sending state. The consent of the host
state, with respect to the foreign agent’s directives, is an indispensable
requirement.
The doctrine of state immunity is also applicable to complaints
Arigo v. Swift filed against officials of the state for acts allegedly performed by
them in the discharge of their duties.
The court ruled that immunity is necessary to assure unimpeded
performance of their functions. The grant of privileges and
Lasco v. UNRFNRE
immunities to international organizations, its officials and
functionaries is to secure them legal and practical independence.

Where the plea of diplomatic immunity is recognized and affirmed

Callado v. IRRI by the executive branch of the government, it is then the duty of
the courts to accept the claim of immunity.

A suit against a public officer for his official acts is, in effect, a suit
Calub and Valencia v. CA
against the State if its purpose is to hold the State ultimately liable.

The Government is not liable for the actions done by their public
officials beyond their official duties. And if the officials acted beyond
Ruiz v. Cabahug
their authority to perform their official duties, a suit is filed not against the
State but against the Officials.
 The court ruled that the suit is brought against the Central Bank of the
Olizon v. Central Bank of the PhilippPhilippines, an entity authorized by its charter to sue and be sued.
The consent of the State to thus be sued, therefore, has been given

That as an office of the government without any corporate or

juridical personality, the Bureau of Printing cannot be sued, because
Bureau of Printing v. Bureau of Pri
its functions are still considered a governmental function, and the
rule is settled that the government cannot be sued without its consent.

That although a function may be deemed proprietary, if it is a

necessary incident of the primary and governmental function, so
Mobil Philippines Exploration Inc. vthat engaging in the same does not necessarily render goverment
agency liable to suit. For otherwise, it could not perform its
governmental function without necessarily exposing itself to suit.

The court ruled that once consent is secured, an action may be

filed. There is nothing to prevent the State, however, in such statutory
Sayson v. Singzon
grant, to require that certain administrative proceedings be had
and be exhausted.
The doctrine of governmental immunity from suit cannot serve as an
Amigable v. Cuenca
instrument for perpetrating an injustice on a citizen

When the government enters into a contract, it is deemed to have

US v. Ruiz descended to the level of the other contracting party and divested of its
sovereign immunity from suit with its implied consent but this
restrictive application of state immunity is proper only when the
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign
sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. A state may be
said to have descended to the level of an individual and can thus be
deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be sued only when it
US v. Guinto enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the
contract relates the exercise of its sovereign function

Republic v. Sandiganbayan
When the State enters into contract, through its officers or agents, in
furtherance of a legitimate aim and purpose and pursuant to
constitutional legislative authority, whereby mutual or reciprocal
benefits accrue and rights and obligations arise therefrom, the State
may be sued even without its express consent, precisely because by
entering into a contract the sovereign descends to the level of the citizen.
Its consent to be sued is implied from the very act of entering into such
contract, breach of which on its part gives the corresponding right to
the other party to the agreement.
 By consenting to be sued a state simply waives its immunity from
suit. It does not thereby concede its liability to plaintiff, or create
any cause of action in his favor, or extend its liability to any cause not
Merritt v. Government
previously recognized. It merely gives a remedy to enforce a preexisting
liability and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court, subject to its
right to interpose any lawful defense.

Although the government, as plaintiff in expropriation proceedings,

submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court and thereby waives its
immunity from suit, the judgment that is thus rendered requiring its
payment of the award determined as just compensation for the
Commissioner of Public Highways v.condemned property as a condition precedent to the transfer to the title
thereto in its favor, cannot be realized upon execution. The
legislature must first appropriate the amount, over and above the
provisional deposit, that may be necessary to pay the award determined
in the judgment

The court ruled that we are a government of laws and not of men, that
Villavicencio v. Lukban
serves to protect individual liberty from illegal encroachment.
The fact that the three great powers of government are intended to
be kept separate and distinct does not mean that they are absolutely
unrestrained and independent of each other. The Constitution has
Belgica v. Ochoa
also provided for an elaborate system of checks and balances to
secure coordination in the workings of the various departments of the
government.

When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional

boundaries, it does not assert any superiority over the other
departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation
Angara v. Electoral Commission
assigned to it by the Constitution to determine conflicting claims of
authority under the Constitution. This is in truth all that is involved in what
is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of
judicial review under the Constitution.

Where an action of the legislative branch is alleged to have infringed the

Abakada Guro Party List v. PurisimConstitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the
judiciary to settle the dispute.

The legislature has no authority to execute or construe the law, the

executive has no authority to make or construe the law, and the judiciary
has no power to make or execute the law. The principle of separation of
powers and its concepts of autonomy and independence stem from the
Belgica v. Ochoa
notion that the powers of government must be divided to avoid
concentration of these powers in any one branch; the division, it is hoped,
would avoid any single branch from lording its power over the other
branches or the citizenry.
 There are two species of political questions: (1) "truly political questions"
and (2) those which "are not truly political questions."
Truly political questions are thus beyond judicial review, the reason for
Francisco v. HR
respect of the doctrine of separation of powers to be maintained. On the
other hand courts can review questions which are not truly
political in nature.
Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have
infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the
duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is
judicial rather than political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure
Tanada v. Angara
that the supremacy of the Constitution is upheld." The SC will only
exercise its constitutional duty "to determine whether or not there had
been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction"

In the absence of constitutional or statutory guidelines or specific

rules, this Court is devoid of any basis upon which to determine the
legality of the acts of the Senate relative thereto. On grounds of respect
Defensor v. Guingona
for the basic concept of separation of powers, courts may not intervene in
the internal affairs of the legislature; it is not within the province of
courts to direct Congress how to do its work.

The Court cannot interfere with or question the wisdom of the

conduct of foreign relations by the Executive Department.
Vinuya v. Exec. Secretary Accordingly, the Court cannot direct the Executive Department, either by
writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct foreign relations in a certain
manner.

Moreover, the limitation on the power of judicial review to actual cases

and controversies carries the assurance that the courts will not intrude
into areas committed to the other branches of government which
Ocampo v. Enriquez pertain to questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided
by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
executive branch of the government.

PAGCOR can not delegate its power in view of the legal principle of
Jaworski v. PAGCOR delegata potestas delegare non potest, inasmuch as there is nothing in
the charter to show that it has been expressly authorized to do so.

There are two (2) fundamental tests to ensure that the legislative
guidelines for delegated rule-making are indeed adequate. The
"completeness test". A law is complete when it sets forth therein the
policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate;
Belgica v. Ochoa
and "sufficient standard test." A law lays down a sufficient standard it
provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law to map out the
boundaries of the delegate‘s authority and prevent the delegation
from running riot.

People v. Dacuycuy
Chiongbian v. Orbos
Gerochi v. Dept. of Energy
Belgica v. Ochoa
Villena v. Secretary of Interior
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS
Tañada v. Angara
What valid delegation presupposes and sanctions is an exercise of
discretion to fix the length of service of a term of imprisonment which
must be encompassed within specific or designated limits provided
by law, the absence of which designated limits well constitute such
exercise as an undue delegation, if not-an outright intrusion into or
assumption, of legislative power.
A legislative standard need not be expressed. It may simply be
gathered or implied. Nor need it be found in the law challenged
because it may be embodied in other statutes on the same subject as that
of the challenged legislation
SC has accepted as sufficient standards the following: "interest of law
and order;" "adequate and efficient instruction;" "public
interest;" "justice and equity;""public convenience and welfare;"
"simplicity, economy and efficiency;" "standardization and
regulation of medical education;" and "fair and equitable
employment practices."
The phrase "and for such other purposes as may be hereafter
directed by the President" under the same provision of law should
nonetheless be stricken down as unconstitutional as it lies
independently unfettered by any sufficient standard of the
delegating law.
The court ruled that the Secretary of Interior has the power to suspend
the petitioner by virtue of the “Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency”
which states that all executive and administrative organizations
are adjuncts of the agents of the Chief Executive, and except in
cases where the Chief executive is required by the Constutiion or the law
to act in cases where the Chief executive is demand that he act
personally.
PREVAILING RULE - Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the
provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-
executing, as a contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to
determine when, or whether, they shall be effective.
These principles in Article II are not intended to be self-executing
principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They are used by
the judiciary as aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of
judicial review, and by the legislature in its enactment of laws.
 The Court held that while the right to a balanced and healthful
ecology is to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State
Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less
important than any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the
latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights
Oposa v. Factoran altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and
self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the
advancement of which may even be said to predate all governments
and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these basic rights need not even
be written in the Constitution for they are assumed to exist from the
inception of humankind.

TRANSFORMATION - Treaties become part of the law of the land

through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the
Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or international agreement
Pharmaceutical & Health Care Assoc.
shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all
the members of the Senate." Thus, treaties or conventional international
law must go through a process prescribed by the Constitution for it to be
transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts

INCORPORATION - [G]enerally accepted principles of

international law, by virtue of the incorporation clause of the
Constitution, form part of the laws of the land even if they do not
derive from treaty obligations. The classical formulation in
international law sees those customary rules accepted as binding result
Mijares v. Ranada from the combination [of] two elements: the established, widespread,
and consistent practice on the part of States; and a psychological
element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates (opinion as to
law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief that the
practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule of
law requiring it

INCORPORATION - International custom, as evidence of a general

practice accepted as law. The material sources of custom include
(PLIRPUN):
1. State practice,
2. State legislation,
3. International and national judicial decisions,
3. Recitals in treaties and other international instruments,
Razon v. Tagitis
4. A pattern of treaties in the same form,
5. The practice of international organs; and
6. Resolutions relating to legal questions in the UN General Assembly.
Sometimes referred to as "evidence" of international law, these sources
identify the substance and content of the obligations of States and are
indicative of the "State practice" and "opinio juris" requirements of
international law.

INCORPORATION - that "generally accepted principles of

Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec
international law" are based not only on international custom, but also
on "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,".
Justice, fairness, equity and the policy against discrimination
which are fundamental principles underlying the Bill of Rights and which
are "basic to legal systems generally," are, therefore, "generally accepted
principles of international law" under the incorporation clause.
 CONFLICT - Efforts should first be exerted to harmonize them, so as to
give effect to both since it is to be presumed that municipal law was
enacted with proper regard for the generally accepted principles of
international law in observance of the observance of the Incorporation
Lantion v. DOJ
Clause. Where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to be
made between a rule of international law and municipal law,
jurisprudence dictates that municipal law should be upheld by the
municipal courts

NO INCORPATION - we are not prepared to declare that these

Yogyakarta Principles contain norms that are obligatory on the
Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Comelec Philippines. There are declarations and obligations outlined in said
Principles which are not reflective of the current state of international law,
and do not find basis in any of the sources of international law.
The deployment of the Marines in the metropolis for civilian law
IBP v. Zamora enforcement does not constitute a breach of the civilian supremacy
clause.
The duty of The Government to defend The State cannot be performed
except through an army. to leave The organization of an army to The will
People v. Lagman and Zosa
of The citizens would be to make this duty of The Government excusable
should there be no sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.

Verily, the principle of separation of church and state is based on mutual

respect. Generally, the state cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the
Imbong v. Ochoa church. It cannot favor one religion and discriminate against another. On
the other hand, the church cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on
the state and the rest of the citizenry.

Whether referred to as Philippine "internal waters" under Article I of the

Constitution39 or as "archipelagic waters" under UNCLOS III, the
Magallona v. Ermita Philippines exercises sovereignty over the body of water lying landward of
the baselines, including the air space over it and the submarine areas
underneath.

While Section 19, Article II of the 1987 Constitution requires the

development of a self-reliant and independent national economy
Espina v. Zamora
effectively controlled by Filipino entrepreneurs, it does not impose a policy
of Filipino monopoly of the economic environment.
The SC ruled that the social justice provisions of the Constitution are not
BFAR Employees v. COA self-executing principles ready for enforcement through the courts. They
are merely statements of principles and policies.

CIVIL RIGHTS: rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his

citizenship in a state or community. Such term may also refer, in its
general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil
action.
Simon v. CHR
POLITICAL RIGHTS: right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the
establishment or administration of government, the right of suffrage, the
right to hold public office, the right of petition and, in general, the rights
appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.
 The Moment of Conception is Reckoned from
Fertilization.
The State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over the
role of parents in the care and custody of a minor child, whether or
Imbong v. Ochoa not the latter is already a parent or has had a miscarriage. Only a
compelling state interest can justify a state substitution of their parental
authority.
XPN: 1. Access to Information
2. Life Threatening Cases

Sec. 14, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, expressly recognizes the role
of women in nation-building and commands the State to ensure, at all
times, the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
PT & T v. NLRC
Where the employer discriminates against married women, but not
against married men, the variable is sex and the discrimination is
unlawful.
These provisions are self-executing. Unless the provisions clearly express
the contrary, the provisions of the Constitution should be considered self-
Imbong v. Ochoa
executory. There is no need for legislation to implement these self-
executing provisions.

The Court held that while the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is
to be found under the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not
under the Bill of Rights, it does not follow that it is less important than
any of the civil and political rights enumerated in the latter. Such a right
belongs to a different category of rights altogether for it concerns nothing
Oposa v. Factoran
less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation — aptly and fittingly
stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may even be said
to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, these
basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are
assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.

Apart from the State’s police power, the Constitution itself mandates
JMM Promotion and Management v.
government to extend the fullest protection to our overseas workers.

The constitutional policy of a "self-reliant and independent national

economy" does not necessarily rule out the entry of foreign investments,
Tanada v. Angara
goods and services. It contemplates neither "economic seclusion"
nor "mendicancy in the international community."

The 1987 Constitution requires the development of a self-reliant and

independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipino
Espina v. Zamora entrepreneurs, it does not impose a policy of Filipino monopoly of the
economic environment. The objective is simply to prohibit foreign
powers or interests from maneuvering our economic policies and
ensure that Filipinos are given preference in all areas of
development.
While the Constitution mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services,
labor and enterprises, it also recognizes the need for business exchange
Espina v. Zamora with the rest of the world on the bases of equality and reciprocity and
limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign competition
and trade practices that are unfair

Assoc. of Small Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform

 The principle of local autonomy under the 1987 Constitution simply means
Lina v. Pano “decentralization”. It does not make local governments sovereign
within the state or an “imperium in imperio.”

What is important is equal access to the opportunity. If you broaden, it

would necessarily mean that the government would be mandated to
create as many offices as are possible to accommodate as many people
as are also possible. To limit offices only to what may be necessary and
Pamatong v. COMELEC
expedient yet offering equal opportunities to access to it; the word "equal
access" is used.
Political Dynasties - the foregoing provision is considered as not self-
executing due to the qualifying phrase "as may be defined by law."

The people's right to information is limited to "matters of public concern,"

and is further "subject to such limitations as may be provided by law."
Similarly, the State's policy of full disclosure is limited to "transactions
involving public interest," and is "subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law".
"Public concern" like "public interest" is a term that eludes exact
Antolin v. Domondon
definition. Both terms embrace a broad spectrum of subjects which the
public may want to know, either because these directly affect their lives,
or simply because such matters naturally arouse the interest of an
ordinary citizen. It is for the courts to determine on a case by case
basis whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it
relates to or affects the public.

Under the Philippine Bill of 1902, inhabitants of the Philippines who

were Spanish subjects on the 11-APR-1899 and then residing in said
Co v. HRET islands and their children born subsequent thereto were conferred
the status of a Filipino citizen. Spanish subjects: who may have
acquired domicile in any town in the Monarchy, like the Philippines.

Dual citizenship are aquired by:

(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign
countries which follow the principle of jus soli;
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien fathers
if by the laws of their father's' country such children are citizens of
that country;
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter's country
Mercado v. Manzano
the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or omission
they are deemed to have renounced Philippine citizenship.
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in which a
person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more
states.
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an
individual's volition.

Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines must meet the
requirements for holding such office, and make a personal and sworn
Lopez v. Comelec
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath
 Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos,
who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign country, but who
reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of
Jacot v. Dal allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 and (2) for those
seeking elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally
execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
citizenship.

Frivaldo v. Comelec Reptriation, if granted, retroacts to the date of filing of application.

That the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his
original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship. There are only
two classes of citizens: (1) those who are natural-born and (2) those who
Bengzon III v. HRET
are naturalized in accordance with law. A citizen who is not a naturalized
Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to
obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is natural-born Filipino.

Poviding for the repatriation of Filipino women who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens and of natural-born Filipinos;
Altajeros v. Comelec
Repatriation retroacts to the date of filing of one's application for
repatriation

Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is

not a self-executing provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on
dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No. 9225, the framers
Calilung v. Secretary of Justice
were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the
status of naturalized citizens who maintain their allegiance to
their countries of origin even after their naturalization

POE-LLAMANZARES v. COMELEC Natural-born citizen upon reacquistion of citizenship by a Foundling.

Fundamental to the idea of a democratic and republican state is the right

of the people to determine their own destiny through the choice of
GMA Network v. Comelec leaders they may have in government. Thus, the primordial importance of
suffrage and the concomitant right of the people to be adequately
informed for the intelligent exercise of such birthright.

In order to acquire a domicile by choice, there must concur (1)

residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) (animus
manendi) an intention to remain there, and (3) (animus non
revertendi) an intention to abandon the old domicile. The purpose to
Gallego v. Verra remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of
time. The acts of the person must conform with his purpose. The change
of residence must be voluntary; the residence at the place chosen for the
domicile must be actual; and to the fact of residence there must be added
the animus manendi
 It has also been settled that absence from residence to pursue studies or
Faypon v. Quirino practice a profession or registration as a voter other than in the place
where one is elected, does not constitute loss of residence

There is no provision in the dual citizenship law – RA 9225 –

requiring “duals” to actually establish residence and physically
stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise the right to vote –
on the contrary, RA 9225, in implicit acknowledgment that “duals” are
most likely non-resident, grants under its Section 5(1) the same right of
Nicolas-Lewis v, Comelec
suffrage as that granted an absentee voter under RA 9189. It cannot be
overemphasized that RA 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as
much as possible all overseas Filipinos, who, save for residency
requirements exacted of an ordinary voter under ordinary conditions, are
qualified to vote.

The right of dual citizens who vote as absentee voters pertain

only to the election of national officials, specifically: the president,
Velasco v. Comelec
vice-president, the senators, and the party-list representatives. Thus, the
local elections are not included

The SC ruled that the COMELEC, acted within the bounds and confines of
of RA 8189 in denying the request to hold a special registration. COMELEC
Akbayan v. Comelec simply performed its constitutional task to enforce and administer all laws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, inter alia, questions
relating to the registration of voters.

The SC declared that R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the

Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to
have failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation

The SC that a people's initiative can only propose amendments to

the Constitution since the Constitution itself limits initiatives to
Lambino v. Comelec
amendments. There can be no deviation from the constitutionally
prescribed modes of revising the Constitution.

Public office is a public trust. It must be discharged by its holder not

for his own personal gain but for the benefit of the public for
whom he holds it in trust. By demanding accountability and service
Abakada Guro v. Purissima
with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency, patriotism and justice, all
government officials and employees have the duty to be responsive to the
needs of the people they are called upon to serve.

The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary

requirement of accountability to the people at all times, as mandated
under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an
Ombudsman Carpio-Morales v. CA aelective local official’s administrative liability for a misconduct committed
during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a
second term of office, or even another elective post (Condonation
Doctrine).
Ocampo v. Enriquez

The court ruled that initiation takes place by the act of filing of the
impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on
Francisco v. HR
Justice. Rules and regulation contrary to this are deemed
unconsititutional
 The provision conveys two uncomplicated ideas: first, it tells us that
judgment in impeachment cases has a limited reach, it cannot
extend further than removal from office and disqualification to
hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, and second, it
Estrada v. Desierto
tells us the consequence of the limited reach of a judgment in
impeachment proceedings considering its nature, that the party
convicted shall still be liable and subject to prosecution, trial and
punishment according to law.

The filing of an impeachment complaint is like the lighting of a

matchstick. Lighting the matchstick alone, however, cannot light up the
candle, unless the lighted matchstick reaches or torches the candle wick.
Referring the complaint to the proper committee ignites the impeachment
proceeding. With a simultaneous referral of multiple complaints filed,
more than one lighted matchsticks light the candle at the same time.
What is important is that there should only be ONE CANDLE that is
Gutierrez v. HR
kindled in a year, such that once the candle starts burning, subsequent
matchsticks can no longer rekindle the candle.
To reiterate, when the Constitution uses the word "promulgate," it does
not necessarily mean to publish in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation. Promulgation, as used in Section 3(8),
Article XI of the Constitution, suitably takes the meaning of "to make
known" as it should be generally understood.

The Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 endowed the Office of the
Ombudsman with wide latitude, in the exercise of its investigatory and
prosecutory powers, to pass upon criminal complaints involving public
officials and employees. Specifically, the determination of whether
probable cause exists is a function that belongs to the Office of the
ITF v. Comelec
Ombudsman.
There is grave abuse of discretion (1) when an act is done
contrary to the Constitution, the law or jurisprudence; or (2)
when it is executed whimsically, capriciously or arbitrarily out of
malice, ill will or personal bias.

Under the Ombudsman act of 1989, the Office of the Ombudsman is

vested with the power to investigate any serious misconduct in the
office allegedly committed by officials removable by impeachment,
for the purpose of filing a verified complaint for impeachment, if
warranted.
Ombudsman v. CA The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is armed
with the power to prosecute erring public officers and
employees, giving him an active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-
graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses that may be
committed by such officers and employees. The legislature has vested him
with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions

The Office of the Ombudsman exercises jurisdiction over public

officials/ employees of GOCCs with original charters. This being so,
it can only investigate and prosecute acts or omissions of the
officials/employees of government corporations. Therefore, although the
Khan v. Ombudsman
government later on acquired the controlling interest in PAL, the fact
remains that the latter did not have an "original charter" and its
officers/employees could not be investigated and/or prosecuted by the
Ombudsman.
 COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR
BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO
THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OFASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET
Corona v. Senate WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987
CONSTITUTION.

Presidential Ad Hoc v. Desierto

Rabe v. Flores
TOPIC
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Legislative initiatives by citizens

SEC. 1

Initiative and referndum

SEC. 3 Qualifications of a Senator

SEC. 4 Term limits of a Senator

SEC. 5 House of Representatives

SEC. 6 Qualifcations for members of the House of Representatives

SEC. 7 Term limits of members of the House of Representatives

SEC. 11 Immunity from Arrest & Privilege of Speech

Prohibition from Other Position in the Government or Government-owned or Controlled Corporation without renounce
Sec. 13
membership in Congress.

Prohibition from personally appearing as counsel before any court of justice or before Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
Sec. 14
and other administrative bodies.

Sec. 16 Leaders of each House; Quorum=Majority; Attendance; No adjournment without the consent of the other.

Sec. 17 Electoral Tribunal: 9 Members - 6 From Congress, 3 from SC; Proportional Representation.
 Commission on Appointments; Proportional Representation; 25 Members: 1 Senate President (Chairman), 12 Senators, 12
Sec. 18
members of HR

Sec. 19 The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session

Power of Legislative Investigation; {GR: MANDATORY AGAINST ANYONE. XPN: PRESIDENT, EXECUTIVE
Sec. 21
PRIVILEGE, NERI CASE, 3 REQs.}

Duly published rules of procedure of both Houses of Congress

Sec. 22 Oversight Power - Question Hour; {not imperative upon the executive department}

>War Powers – sole power to declare existence of war (by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session
Sec. 23 assembled, voting separately)
>National emergency, the Congress may, by law.

Sec. 24 RAT Bills shall come from HR

>XPN to GENERAL VETO: Item-VETO in RAT Bills (Revenue, Appropirations, Tariffs). "Inappropirate Provisions" are
considered "Items". (Phil. Constituion Assoc. Case)

GR: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriation

Sec. 25
XPN: President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice o
the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment an
item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their
respective appropriations. (DAP case: Araullo v. Aquino
 One-Subject Rule

Sec. 26

No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the
Sec. 28 Congress.

Prohibition against:
1. use of government money without appropriation;
Sec. 29
2. use of money for the benefit of religion; and
3. use of special fund for purposes other than its intended special purpose
Sec. 30 Prohibition against: Increase of appellate jurisdiction of SC without its concurrence
Sec. 31 Prohibition against: granting a title of royalty or nobility
Sec. 32 Initiative and referendum,
Ill-gotten Wealth
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth

Z
itiatives by citizens

s of a Senator
 for members of the House of Representatives

f members of the House of Representatives

m Arrest & Privilege of Speech

om Other Position in the Government or Government-owned or Controlled Corporation without renounce

in Congress.

om personally appearing as counsel before any court of justice or before Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial
ministrative bodies.

ach House; Quorum=Majority; Attendance; No adjournment without the consent of the other.

unal: 9 Members - 6 From Congress, 3 from SC; Proportional Representation.

on Appointments; Proportional Representation; 25 Members: 1 Senate President (Chairman), 12 Senators, 12
HR

ssion on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session

islative Investigation; {GR: MANDATORY AGAINST ANYONE. XPN: PRESIDENT, EXECUTIVE

, NERI CASE, 3 REQs.}

ed rules of procedure of both Houses of Congress

wer - Question Hour; {not imperative upon the executive department}

ers – sole power to declare existence of war (by a vote of 2/3 of both houses in joint session
voting separately)
emergency, the Congress may, by law.

ll come from HR

ENERAL VETO: Item-VETO in RAT Bills (Revenue, Appropirations, Tariffs). "Inappropirate Provisions" are
tems". (Phil. Constituion Assoc. Case)

shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriation

dent, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of
e Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any
general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items of their
appropriations. (DAP case: Araullo v. Aquino
ing any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the

gainst:
ernment money without appropriation;
ney for the benefit of religion; and
cial fund for purposes other than its intended special purpose
gainst: Increase of appellate jurisdiction of SC without its concurrence
gainst: granting a title of royalty or nobility
referendum,
Liabilities and Networth
CASE to Cite
Garcia v. COMELEC
SBMA v. COMELEC
Social Justice Society v.
Dangerous Drugs Board
Borja v. COMELEC
Veterans Federation Party v.
COMELEC
Banat v. COMELEC
JURISPRUDENCE
The S.C. held that the Constitution clearly includes not only ordinances
but resolutions as appropriate subjects of a local initiative. Section 32 of
Article VI - clearly provides for "any act". An act includes a resolution.
The S.C. stated the difference between initiative and referendum:
-that initiative is resorted to (or initiated) by the people directly either
because the law-making body fails or refuses to enact the law, ordinance,
resolution or act that they desire or because they want to amend or
modify one already existing.
- in a local referendum, the lawmaking body submits to the registered
voters of its territorial jurisdiction, for approval or rejection, any ordinance
or resolution which is duly enacted or approved by such lawmaking
authority
*COMELEC, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers, may decide
whether proposals or parts thereof are patently and clearly outside the
“capacity of the local legislative body to enact".
If Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet additional
qualification, other than those stated in Sec. 3 of Art. VI of the
Constitution, to wit:
(1) citizenship, - Natural-born
(2) voter registration,
(3) literacy,
(4) age (35 years old on the day of election), and
(5) residency (domicile) 2 years before election
The S.C. held that the term limit for elective local officials must be taken
to refer to the right to be elected as well as the right to serve in the same
elective position. Consequently, it is not enough that an individual has
served three consecutive terms in an elective local office, he must also
have been elected to the same position for the same number of times
before the disqualification can apply
S.C. held that Section 5 (2) {20% requirement}, Article VI of the
Constitution is not mandatory. It merely provides a ceiling for party-list
seats in Congress. And that consistent with the Constitutional
Commission’s pronouncements, Congress set the seat-limit to three
(3) for each qualified party, organization or coalition
S.C. Ruled that, in computing the allocation of additional seats, the
continued operation of the two percent threshold for the distribution
of the additional seats as found in the second clause of Section 11(b)
of R.A. No. 7941 is unconstitutional
 1. 3 groups may participate in party-list: (1) national, (2) regional and (3)
sectoral parties or organizations.
2. National and regional parties or organizations do not need to organize
along sectoral lines and do not need to represent any “marginalized and
underrepresented” sector.
3. Political parties can participate in party-list elections provided they
register under the party-list system and do not field candidates in
legislative district elections. XPN: its sectoral wing, linked to a political
party through a coalition, that can separately register under the party-list
system.
4. Sectoral parties or organizations may either be “marginalized and
underrepresented” or lacking in “well-defined political constituencies.” It is
enough that their principal advocacy pertains to the special interest and
concerns of their sector. The sectors that are “marginalized and
underrepresented” include labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor,
Paglaum v. COMELEC
indigenous cultural communities, handicapped, veterans, and overseas
workers. The sectors that lack “well-defined political constituencies”
include professionals, the elderly, women, and the youth.
5. A majority of the members of sectoral parties or organizations that
represent the “marginalized and underrepresented” must belong to the
“marginalized and underrepresented” sector they represen. The
nominees of sectoral parties or organizations that represent the
“marginalized and underrepresented,” or that represent those who lack
“well-defined political constituencies,” either must belong to their
respective sectors, or must have a track record of advocacy for
their respective sectors. The nominees of national and regional parties or
organizations must be bona fide members of such parties or
organizations.
6. National, regional, and sectoral parties or organizations must have 1
qualified member

S.C. held that even using the most liberal of lenses, these Yogyakarta
Principles, consisting of a declaration formulated by various international
Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC
law professors, are—at best —de lege ferenda—and do not constitute
binding obligations on the Philippines.

S.C. held that Section 5 (1), Article VI of the Constitution vests in

Congress the power to increase, through a law, the allowable membership
in the House of Representatives. Section 5 (4) empowers Congress to
reapportion legislative districts. The power to reapportion legislative
SEMA v. COMELEC
districts necessarily includes the power to create legislative districts out of
existing ones. {Only Congress, through a national law, can create
provinces and cities, because it will necessarily include a the
creation of new legislative districts}

S.C. held that Section 5(3) of the Constitution requires a 250,000

minimum population only for a city to be entitled to a representative,
but not so for a province. While Section 5(3), Article VI of the Constitution
Aquino III v. COMELEC
requires a city to have a minimum population of 250,000 to be entitled to
a representative, it does not have to increase its population by another
250,000 to be entitled to an additional district.

Marcos v. COMELEC
Aquino v. COMELEC
Fariñas v. Executive Secretary
Jimenez v. Cabangbang
People v. Jalosjos
Liban v. Gordon
Puyat v. De Guzman
Avelino v. Cuenco
Santiago v. Sandigangbayan
Chavez v. COMELEC
Abbas vs. Senate Electoral
Tribunal
When the Constitution speaks of “residence ” in election law, it actually
means only “domicile." It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a
certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether
or not an individual has satisfied the constitution’s residency qualification
requirement
(1) citizenship, - Natural-born
(2) voter registration,
(3) literacy,
(4) age (25 years old on the day of election), and
(5) residency (domicile) 1 years before election
S.C. held that he electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all
contests relative to the election, returns and qualifications of candidates
for either the Senate or the House only when the latter become members
of either the Senate or the House of Representatives. {Electoral
Tribunal's jurisdiction over the qualification cases vests upon the
proclamtion of a candidate as the winner.}
Substantial distinctions clearly exist between elective officials and
appointive officials. elective officials, or officers or employees holding
political offices, are allowed to take part in political and electoral activities.
SC ruled that an open letter to the President of the Philippines when
Congress was not in session is not absolutely privileged
SC ruled that the provision granting an exemption as a special privilege
cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. The
members of Congress cannot compel absent members to attend sessions
if the reason for the absence is a legitimate one.
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may hold any
other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision,
agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries, during his term without
forfeiting his seat. Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may
have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term
for which he was elected.
PNRC is not a government-owned or controlled corporations. Its
structure is sui generis.
That which the Constitution directly prohibits may not be done by
indirection or by a general legislative act which is intended to accomplish
the objects specifically or impliedly prohibited.
Therefore an absolute majority (12) of all the members of the Senate less
one (23), constitutes constitutional majority of the Senate for the purpose
of a quorum.
Sandigangbayan may suspend members of the Congress as it is not a
penalty imposed.
SC ruled that while the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over pre-
proclamation controversies involving local elective officials (Sec. 242,
Omnibus Election Code), nevertheless, pre-proclamation cases are not
allowed in elections for President, Vice-President, Senator and Member of
the House of Representatives.
SC held that the Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as such,
absent its entire membership of Senators and no amendment of its Rules
can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power of valid
adjudication of a senatorial election contest.
 The subsequent disqualification of a candidate who obtained the highest
Ocampo vs. HRET number of votes does not entitle the candidate who garnered the second
highest number of votes to be declared the winner.
S.C. has juridiction, under its power to review decisions, orders, or
resolutions of the COMELEC provided under Section 7, Article IX-A of the
Layug vs. COMELEC 1987 Constitution20 and Section 1, Rule 37 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, over cases of disqualifications if the candidate is not a
proclaimed member of Congress.

The Court has already settled the question of when the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC ends and when that of the House of Representatives Electoral
Tribunal (HRET) begins—the proclamation of a congressional candidate
Jalosjos vs. Comelec
following the election divests COMELEC of jurisdiction over disputes
relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed
Representative in favor of the HRET

The provision of Section 18 on proportional representation is mandatory in

character and does not leave any discretion to the majority party in the
Guingona vs. Gonzales Senate to disobey or disregard the rule on proportional representation;
otherwise, the party with a majority representation in the Senate or the
House of Representatives can by sheer force of numbers impose its will
on the hapless minority.

>XPN to Legislative Investigation: Executive Privilege

Executive privilege - 3REQs (Legal Basis: Principle of Co-Equality):
1. Quintisential & Non-delegable power of the president (e.g., The power
to enter into an executive agreement);
2. Close adviser: Operational Proximity Test
Neri vs. Senate Committees 3. Mere Privilege, Not a Right: Can be disregarded by the Congress if
information is material and unavailable elsewhre.
>XPN TO XPN: can only be overturned by a showing of compelling need
for disclosure of the information covered by executive privilege.
>It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the rules for its legislative
inquiries in each Congress or otherwise make the published rules clearly
state that the same shall be effective in subsequent Congresses or until
they are amended or repealed to sufficiently put public on notice (ON
CITING CONTEMPT).

The absence of any amendment to the rules cannot justify the Senate’s
defiance of the clear and unambiguous language of Section 21, Article VI
Garcillano vs. HR
of the Constitution; The constitutional mandate to publish the said rules
prevails over any custom, practice or tradition followed by the Senate.

Senate vs. Ermita
Tolentino vs. Sec. of Finance
Phil. Constitution Association v.
Enriquez
Belgica vs. Ochoa,
Araullo vs. Aquino
Pascual vs. Sec. of Public Works
and Comm
>A distinction has to be made between the power to conduct inquiries in
aid of legislation, the aim of which is to elicit information that may be
used for legislation, and the power to conduct a question hour, the
objective of which is to obtain information in pursuit of Congress’
oversight function.
>When Congress merely seeks to be informed on how department heads
are implementing the statutes which it has issued, its right to such
information is not as imperative as that of the President to whom, as Chief
Executive, the deparment heads must give a report of their performance
as a matter of duty
>However, when the inquiry in which Congress requires their appearance
is “in aid of legislation” under Sec. 21, the appearance is mandatory.
When Congress exercises its power of inquiry, the only way for
department heads to exempt themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of
executive privilegthe only way for department heads to exempt
themselves therefrom is by a valid claim of privilege. They are not
exempt by the mere fact that they are department heads. Only
one executive official may be exempted from this power — the
President on whom executive power is vested, hence, beyond the reach
of Congress except through the power of impeachment. It is based on
her being the highest official of the executive branch, and the due respect
accorded to a co-equal branch of government which is sanctioned by a
long-standing custom.
To insist that a revenue statute must substantially be the same as the
House bill would be to deny the Senate’s power not only to “concur with
amendments” but also to “propose amendments.” It would be to violate
the coequality of legislative power of the two houses of Congress and in
fact make the House superior to the Senate.
Doctrine of “Inappropriate Provision” - Any provision which does not
relate to any particular item, or which extends in its operation beyond an
item of appropriation, is considered “an inappropriate provision” which
can be vetoed separately from an item. Also included are unconstitutional
provisions and provisions which are intended to amend other laws
Refer to MIDTERM TAB
3 REQs. For valid transfer of appropriations
1 Valid law authorizing the transfer of funds pursuant to Section 25(5),
Art. VI.
2. that the source of funds to be transferred were savings from
appropriations within the respective offices; and
3. that the transfer must be for the purpose of augmenting an item of
appropriation within the respective offices.
Appropriation must be devoted to a public purpose
Appropriation must be devoted to a public purpose
 1. To prevent hodge-podge or log-rolling legislation;
2. To prevent surprise’ or fraud upon the legislature by means of
provisions in bills of which the titles gave no information, and which might
therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and
Guzman vs. Comelec
3. To fairly apprise the people, through such publication of legislative
proceedings as is usually made, of the subjects of legislation that are
being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard
thereon by petition or otherwise if they shall so desire.

Under the “enrolled bill doctrine,” the signing of a bill by the Speaker
of the House and the Senate President and the certification of the
Fariñas vs. Executive Secretary
Secretaries of both Houses of Congress that it was passed are conclusive
of its due enactment.
The power to tax and to grant tax exemptions is vested in the Congress
and, to a certain extent, in the local legislative bodies. The PCGG has
Chavez vs. PCGG
absolutely no power to grant tax exemptions, even under the cover of its
authority to compromise ill-gotten wealth cases.
Presidential Ad Hoc v. Desierto
Rabe v. Flores
TOPIC
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

SEC. 1 The executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines

Qualifications of the President and the Vice President

(1) citizenship, - Natural-born
(2) voter registration,
SEC. 2
(3) literacy,
(4) age (40 years old on the day of election), and
(5) residency (domicile) 10 years before election

Term Limits: The President shall not be eligilbe for any re-election, Vice President, 2 terms max; Only Congress may canva
SEC. 4 the votes for President and Vice President; Supreme Court as sole-judge of all contests relating to election, returns, and
qualifications of the President or Vice-President

OATH: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-Presid
preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of t
SEC. 5
affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.)

Prior to assumption of Office:

1. No chosen President/President fails to qualify: VP as Acting President until President-elect qualifies
2. President dies/becomes permanently disabled: VP becomes the President
SEC. 7
3. If Both for President and VP: Senate President, in case of his disability, then Speaker of the House as Acting President o
4. No one above is available: Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner President shall be selected until a President or

After to assumption of Office:

1. Death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President: VP becomes President
2. Death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President&VP: Senate President, in case of his
SEC. 8
disability, then Speaker of the House as Acting President or VP until President-elect qualifies.
3. eath, permanent disability, or resignation of the Acting President: The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve
as President.

SEC. 11
Sec. 13

Sec. 14

Sec. 16

Sec. 17

Sec. 18

Sec. 19

Sec. 21

Sec. 22

Sec. 23

Sec. 24
 Sec. 25

Sec. 26
Sec. 28
Ill-gotten Wealth
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth

Z
 e power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines

s of the President and the Vice President

p, - Natural-born
stration,

ears old on the day of election), and

(domicile) 10 years before election

The President shall not be eligilbe for any re-election, Vice President, 2 terms max; Only Congress may canvass
President and Vice President; Supreme Court as sole-judge of all contests relating to election, returns, and
of the President or Vice-President

solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President (or Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines,
defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." (In case of
ast sentence will be omitted.)

mption of Office:
President/President fails to qualify: VP as Acting President until President-elect qualifies
dies/becomes permanently disabled: VP becomes the President
President and VP: Senate President, in case of his disability, then Speaker of the House as Acting President or VP until President-elect qualifies.
ove is available: Congress shall, by law, provide for the manner President shall be selected until a President or a Vice-President shall have qualified

mption of Office:
manent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President: VP becomes President
manent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President&VP: Senate President, in case of his
en Speaker of the House as Acting President or VP until President-elect qualifies.
manent disability, or resignation of the Acting President: The Congress shall, by law, provide who shall serve
Liabilities and Networth
 CASE to Cite JURISPRUDENCE

>Residual Powers - The President has unstated residual powers which

Marcos vs. Manglapus are necessary for her to comply with her duties under the Constitution.
[President as Head of the Government - Sec. 4, Art. II] [Parens patirae]
Executive privilege - 3REQs (Legal Basis: Principle of Co-Equality):
1. Quintisential & Non-delegable power of the president (e.g., The power
to enter into an executive agreement);
Neri vs. Senate
2. Close adviser: Operational Proximity Test
3. Mere Privilege, Not a Right: Can be disregarded by the Congress if
information is material and unavailable elsewhre.

COMELEC cannot canvass the votes for the President and the Vice-
Macalintal vs. Comelec
President
PET , is to be an institution independent, but not separate, from the
judicial department [Exception to the consitiutional grant of all
Macalintal vs. PET judicial power to the Supreme Court and such other courts >
LEGAL BASIS: CONSTIUTIONAL EMPOWERMENT, same for HRET
and SET and the Senate-Judges in cases of Impeachment]

Vice-President or Acting President) of the Philippines,

ervice of the Nation. So help me God." (In case of

resident or VP until President-elect qualifies.

resident or a Vice-President shall have qualified

Resignation is not a high level legal abstraction. It is a factual question

and its elements are beyond quibble:
1. there must be an intent to resign and
Estrada vs. Desierto 2. the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment.
The validity of a resignation is not government by any formal requirement
as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can be
implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
Presidential Ad Hoc v. Desierto
Rabe v. Flores