2019 Admin, Local Govt, Public Officers, and Political Law (Atty.

Carlo
Cruz)

 Read the Constitutional provisions

 Focus on the fundamentals

FUNDAMENTALS

Definition of Constitution

Interpretation of the Constitution

 When to resort to extrinsic aid

 Art VII president not eligible for re-election
 Art V, Sec 1 vis-a-vis the Overseas Voting Act on the issue of “residence”(the SC resorted to
extrinsic aid plus Sec2 of same Article was invoked as an exception)
 League of Cities v COMELEC
 Lists or enumeration prescribed in the Consti ahould be considered exclusive
 Art. XI, Sec 2 grounds for impeachment and those impeacheable officers are exclusive in light of
PD 1606, as amended Sec 4 where it is provided that Justices of the Sandiganbayan shall be remi
able only through process of impeachment
 Sidenote: Court Marshall is not a lower court (a court of executive origin, established by the
President in his competence as commander-in-chief) ;Garcia v Office of the President
 Sidenote: Do Court Marshall exercise military jurisdiction? Yes. Do the exercise criminal
jurisdiction? Yes.
 What if a soldier was convicted by the CM and imposed a penalty of life imprisonment, can that
soldier appeal to the SC on the basis of minimum Appellate jurisdiction of the SC as prescribed
under Art VIII, Sec 5, par 2? [Remember the 5 areas there subject to the irreducible Appellate
authority of the supreme Court (1-constitutionality of laws; 2-constitutionality of taxes
imposed;3-imposition of life imprisonment or reclusion perpetual as penalties; 4-jurisdiction ;5-
errors of law)]. So the answer is NO. Because the Appellate authority of the SC is limited only to
the decisions of Lower courts and the Court Marshall is the Not a lower court.
 SO what is the or should be the remedy of the soldier? Avail of the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies and then appeal up to the Office of the President in the latter’s capacity
As commander-in-chief
 If the President acting in his capacity is CIC affirms the conviction/the penalty of life
imprisonment of the soldier, what then should be the remedy? Can he now appeal to the SC?
NO!!! With all the more reason no, because the president is not a lower court. Art 8, Sec 5, par 2
 is limited only to the exercise of the SC of its minimum Appellate authority only over decisions
of lower courts
 SO what is the remedy of that soldier? Do not invoke the SC’s Appellate jurisdiction, instead
invoke the SC’s original jurisdiction under Art 8, Sec 5, par 1
 What if the soldier was charged for Double Murder before the Court Marshall and he was
acquitted, may the same charges for double murder be filed this time before the regular court?
NO! Because that acquittal by the Court Marshall will give rise to a defense of double jeopardy.
Remember in Crisology case as ffirned recently in Garcia, both the RTC and CM would have
criminal jurisdiction, the criminal cases undertaken by either are the same in the context of
equal protection clause. Therefore, an acquittal or conviction in a CM necessarily precludes the
institution of another criminal complaint for the same offense
 NOTE: do not equate impeachment with removal, impeachment means that the Respondent
would be accused such that when the articles of impeachment are filed by the Congress upon
votes of 1/3 - - - at that point the Respondent should already be considered as impeached! Also,
impeachment under the Constitution means that the Respondent would be taken under the
custody of the Senate for purposes of impeachment trial and it 8s on the basis of this
impeachment trial that conviction can be finally had or done against the Respondent in which
case that conviction may lead to his/her removal. So impeachment is the process which may
lead to removal but it is not equated to removal.
