CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II – FINALS REVIEWER
That it does not foster an excessive government
We can do this! 
By: K. Lim Su
5: Freedom of Religion
“No law shall be made respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of
civil and political rights.”
 Religion is a profession of faith to an active power
that binds and elevates man to his Creator.
Non-theistic concept of religion as long as there are four
factors that must concur in order that a system of belief may
be considered as religion and these are:
1) Belief in God or parallel belief that takes a place in the
believer’s life;
2) Demonstrable degree of sincerity without delving in to the
truthfulness of the belief;
3) It must involve a moral code;
4) Associational ties
Free Exercise Clause – prohibits government from inhibiting
religious beliefs with penalties for its practice.
Establishment Clause – prohibits government from inhibiting
religious beliefs with rewards for its practice.
Non-establishment: Separation of Church and State
x Religious sect as political party
x No representative from religious sector
x Use of public money for the benefit of a religion
Exceptions:
1) Taxation exemption (property tax) for directly,
actually, and exclusively used;
2) Citizenship except if educational institution by
religious group;
3) Optional religious instruction;
4) Thursday, Friday of Holy Week, etc.
Purpose: The bloodiest wars are holy wars. The union of
church and State will result to destruction. Thus, it is separated
to preserve integrity.
Compelling State Interest Test = When it involves the question
of religious freedom only.
Clear and Present Danger Rule = When it involves religious
freedom with expression or speech.
Lemon Test = To determine whether an act of the government
violates the non-establishment clause.
1. That the statute has a secular legislative purpose;
2. That the principal effect is one that neither advances
nor inhibits;
3.
entanglement with religion.
 Aglipay v. Ruiz – (postage stamps for Eucharistic
Congress) what is guaranteed by the Constitution is
the religious freedom, not mere religious tolerance.
Any benefit indirectly enjoyed by a religious
institution, as long as such benefit was only
incidental to a legitimate secular objective, would not
violate the prohibition.
Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality: Exemptions are granted to
allow individuals to exercise their religion. Accommodation
extends to criminal and administrative liability.
 Garces v. Estenzo - (purchase of wooden image) – the
funds used for the acquisition of the image was from
private funds and does not directly or indirectly
establish any religion, nor abridge religious liberty,
nor appropriate money for the benefit of any sect,
priest or clergyman.
Q: Can the government require the priests and ministers to
pass the government qualification test?
A: No because no religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil and political rights.
Q: Compensation of priest exempted from taxation?
A: Privilege of accepting the compensation (excise tax) not
exempted to tax.
 American Bible Society v. City of Manila (selling of
bible books) – imposition of license tax on religious
activity violates the constitutional guarantee of
religious freedom. Carries with it the right to
disseminate religious information. Only restraint if
there’s CAPD of substantive evil which the State
may prevent, that is, serious detriment to more
overriding interest of the public health, public morals,
or public welfare.
 Iglesia Ni Cristo v. Court of Appeals – (INC show to
be broadcasted on TV) religious freedom, though
enjoys preferential constitutional protection, may be
regulated by the government.
“designed to protect the broadest liberty of
conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience
directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he
ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the
common good.”
Two-fold aspect:
1) Freedom to believe – absolute as long confined
within the realm of thought.
2) Freedom to act on one’s belief – but where the
individual externalizes his beliefs in acts or omissions
that affect the public, his freedom to do so becomes
subject to the authority of the State.
1
  Justification for prior restraint is the existence of a
grave and present danger.
If violation of law = court has jurisdiction
If doctrinal = not have jurisdiction
Freedom of Religion: best served by encouraging the market
place of dueling ideas.
 Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Cebu
(singing of national anthem and saluting the flag) –
religious freedom is a fundamental right which is
entitled to highest priority and amplest protection
among human rights. But right not to participate does
not give them the right to disrupt such patriotic
exercises.
 Estrada v. Escritor (employee in the judiciary
allowed to have live-in partner cos of religion) –
benevolent neutrality: could allow accommodation of
morality based on religion, provided it does not
offend the compelling State interest.
In deciding the plea for exemption based on free exercise
clause, it is the Compelling State Interest test, the stricter test,
which must be applied.
Test of Whether the Secularly Immoral Acts Can be
Exempted:
1) Whether respondent’s right to religious freedom has
been burdened;
2) Ascertain respondent’s sincerity in her religious
belief.
Three-step process in Compelling State Interest: (As long as
there is one NO, the government act cannot apply)
1. Has the statute or governmental action created a
burden on the free exercise of religion?
2. Is the sufficient compelling State interest to justify
this infringement of religious liberty?
3. Has the State in achieving its legitimate purposes
used the least intrusive means possible so that the
free exercise is not infringed any more than necessary
to achieve the legitimate goal of the State?
Walls of Separation:
1. Standard of Separation
a. Strict Separation (Jeffersonian) – absolute barrier
between church and State. Establishment clause
was meant to protect the State from church, and
State’s hostility towards religion allows no
interaction between the two.
b. Strict Neutrality (Tamer) – Ex. Gerona case
[what applies to A applies to B] does not require
the State to be their adversary. Must only be
neutral in its relations with the groups of
believers and non-believers.
2. Benevolent Neutrality or Accommodation – [church
is the weaker institution] only applies when the law is
violated, to determine if it can be exempted. This
approach recognizes that religion plays an important
role in the public life as shown by many traditional
government practices.
Imbong v. Ochoa – (RH Law on Conscientious Objector MD)
Once the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a patient
seeking information on modem reproductive health products,
services, procedures and methods, his conscience is
immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an
act against his beliefs.
Conscientious Objector Test: (Distinguishes religion from
political ideology)
1. There must be belief in God or some parallel belief
that occupies a central space in believer’s life;
2. Religion must have moral code transcending
individual belief (cannot be purely subjective);
3. A demonstrable sincerity in belief is necessary, but
the court must not inquire into the truth or
reasonableness of belief;
4. There must be some associational ties although there
is also a view that religious belief held by a single
person rather than being part of the teachings of any
kind of group or sect are entitled to the protection of
the Free Exercise Clause.
Q: Is attendance to Sem classes violative of right to religious
freedom?
A: No. Because Art. 3, Sec. 5 only applies in public
institutions or government because a student has the freedom
to enroll in other schools.
6: Liberty of Abode and Travel
“The liberty of abode and of changing the same
within the limits provided by law shall not be impaired, except
upon lawful order of court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”
Liberty of Abode – right to change one’s place; right of a
person to have his home in whatever place chosen by him and
thereafter change at his will.
Limitation: Upon a lawful order of the court.
ex. 1) lessee may be judicially ejected for violating
contractual duties;
2) judge may prevent person from entering premises.
 Reclassification is a valid exercise vested in the
executive department and an ordinance reclassifying
may be construed as a lawful order.
 But a servant cannot be prevented to leave master’s
household due to unpaid debts. No right to curtail
freedom. (Caunca v. Salazar)
Right to Travel – (1) to leave Philippines; (2) to travel within
the Philippines.
2

Limitations:
1. Interest of national security;
2. Public safety;
3. Public health;
4. Charged of crimes;
5. Persons subpoenaed or arrested by Congress pursuant
to their legislative inquiry;
6. Government officials and employees who need to
secure travel authority
Limitations:
1. Constitutional – found in the Constitution;
2. Statutory – Human Security Act, Philippine Passport
Act;
3. Inherent – residual power of the President; bail.
 Right to Return – may be impaired although not by
law as long as it is not arbitrary.
 Marcos v. Manglapus – (Marcos not allowed to
return to PH cos threat, as he is a danger to national
security) – right to return is not a constitutionally
guaranteed right but a generally accepted principle of
international law, thus forms part of the law of the
land (Sec. 2, Art. 2). However, the president through
her residual power may prohibit as to protect the
general welfare of the people.
 Manotoc v. Court of Appeals – may be restricted
upon a lawful order of the court; restriction of the
right to travel is a necessary consequence of bail; as
to the nature and function of bail bond.
 Silverio v. Court of Appeals – person facing criminal
charges may be restrained by the court from leaving
the country, or if abroad, be compelled to return.
 But unnecessary delays in processing travel papers
constitute a violation on the right to travel. (Salonga
v. Hermoso)
7: Right to Information
“The right to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to
documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions,
or decisions, as well as to government research data used as
basis for policy development shall be afforded by the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.”
Exceptions:
1. National Security Matters – military, diplomatic, and
other national security matters. But where there is no
need to protect such State secrets, the privilege may
not be invoked to withhold documents.
2. Criminal Matters – information on investigations of
crimes by law enforcement agencies before the
prosecution of the accused; apprehension,
prosecution, and detention.
3. Trade, Banking, and Industrial secrets – ex. IP Code,
Bank Secrecy
4. Other Confidential Information – privileged
information rooted in separation of power; known to
them by reason of office.
To determine availability of access: That the nature of
information:
a. Being of public concern or involves public interest;
b. Not being exempted by law from operation of
constitutional guarantee.
Matters of Public Concern or Interest:
a. These directly affect their lives; or
b. Such matters naturally arouse the interest of an
ordinary citizen. (Should not be mere curiosity.
Example: president’s sex life)
 Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission (wanted to look
at the list of civil service eligibility passers) –
information sought was of public concern. Public
office is a public trust.
Government authority may only regular the time and manner
of inspection, in order not to (a) damage public records, (b)
prevent undue interference with the duties of the agency, and
(c) to assure the exercise of the constitutional right by other
persons.
 Valmonte v. Belmonte (to furnish names of those
who obtained loan prior to election) – right to
information extends to GOCC whether performing
proprietary or governmental function. GSIS may be
asked for information since it is a trustee of gov’t and
its employees, thus assumes public character.
However, there is no right to compel it (such as to
produce copies of documents).
 Province of Cotabato v. Government of the Republic
of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
– (MOA AD of the Bangsamora Judicial Entity) –
there is violation on the right to information for the
non-disclosure since the public has legitimate interest
in matters of social and political significance. Matters
of public concern covered by ROI include steps and
negotiations leading to the consummation of the
contract.
 Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice – (death execution
manual) – requirement of confidentiality of contents
of the manual, even with respect to the convict, is
unduly oppressive. The manual for death execution is
a matter of public interest.
 Chavez v. Presidential Commission on Good
Government – full public disclosure extends to
information relative to the negotiation of public
transaction. It is incumbent upon PCGG to disclose
3
 sufficient public information on any proposed
settlement with the holders of ill-gotten wealth.
 In Re: Production of Court Records and Documents
and the Attendance of Court Officials and Employees
as Witnesses under the Subpoenas of February 10,
2012 and the various letters for the Impeachment
Prosecution Panel dated January 19 and 25, 2012 –
judicial privilege prohibits the revelation of
confidential or secret information that causes damage
to public interest even in judicial and other
proceedings, such as the sui generis impeachment
trial. (Extends to executive and legislative)
The Supreme Court prohibits the disclosure of the following:
1) Result of raffle cases;
2) Actions taken by court on each case included in the
agenda of court’s session;
3) Deliberations of Members in court sessions on cases
and matters pending before it.
 To freely discuss issues without fear of criticism for
holding unpopular positions or fear of humiliation for
one’s comments.
To qualify for protection under deliberative process privilege,
agency must show that document is both:
1) Pre-decisional – if it precedes, in temporal sequence,
the decision to which it relates. Made in attempt to
reach final conclusion;
2) Deliberative – reflects the give and take of
consultative process. “Whether disclosure of
information would discourage candid discussion
within the agency.”
As to court records, witnesses need not be summoned to
testify on matters of public record because:
1. So public officers’ business will not be interrupted or
hampered;
2. Presumption that they discharge trust and accuracy
and fidelity;
3. Privileges which apply to the judges and justices
shall likewise apply to court employees.
Privileged Document: Principle of Comity – highest officious
exempt from compulsory processes of other departments.
8: Right to Form Association
“The right of the people, including those employed in
the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.”
(1) liberty or freedom, i.e., the absence of legal restraint, whereby an employee may act for himself without being prevented by law;
and
(2) power, whereby an employee may, as he pleases, join or refrain from joining an association.
However, the right is not absolute.
 May outlaw organizations aimed to overthrow the
government.
 May disassociate if religion prohibits.
 Workers in public sectors are allowed as the law does
not distinguish. However, they may not engage in
strikes.
 SSS Employees Associations v. Court of Appeals –
the right to strike is not included in the guarantee of
association to government employees. It is by reason
of the nature of public employer and the peculiar
character of public service. Government employees
only have the option to: (a) petition congress for the
betterment of the terms and conditions, and (b) if
unresolved, may be referred to a labor council.
Since the terms and conditions of government employment are
fixed by law, government workers cannot use the same
weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure
concessions from their employers. In private sector, industrial
peace cannot be secured by compulsion by law. Relations
between private employers and their employees rest on
essentially voluntary basis. The terms and conditions of
employment in the unionized private sector are settled through
the process of collective bargaining. In government
employment, it is the legislature and where properly given
delegated power, the administrative heads of government
which fix the terms and conditions of employment.
 Closed-shop agreement (employer may only employ
members of union and remain as members during the
duration of the contract) – not a violation of the right
to associate since the employee is free to accept or
not the employment contract containing the
agreement.
 However, closed-shop agreement exempts members
of religious sects which prohibit affiliation to
organizations.
 Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers’ Union – (INC
but cannot join unions) – the right to join associations
includes the right not to join. Based on theories of
Liberty and Power.
Non-impairment Clause: any statute which introduces change
into the express terms of the contract, or its legal construction,
or validity or discharge or remedy for its enforcement, impairs
the contract.
 In Re: IBP Membership dues delinquency of Atty.
Marcial Edillon – to compel a lawyer to be a member
of the IBP is not violative. He is free to attend or not
to attend meetings, to vote or not. He is only
compelled to pay dues which is justified to further a
State’s legitimate interest in elevating the quality of
professional legal services.
4

10: Non-Impairment Clause
“No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall
be passed.”
 The change must not only impair the obligations and
contract, but impairment must be substantial.
 The law must effect a change in the rights of the
parties with reference to each other, and not with
respect to non-parties.
 Law = includes statutes, executive orders, admin
regulations, municipal ordinance but not judicial
decisions or adjudications made by admin bodies in
exercise of their quasi-judicial powers.
 It only protects contracts which are legal and lawful.
Impairment = anything that diminishes the efficacy of the
contract. (Victriano v. Elizalde)
a. Changes the terms of legal contract between parties
either in time or mode of performance;
b. Imposes new conditions or dispenses with those
expressed;
c. Authorizes for its satisfaction something different
from the provided in terms.
 To impair, it must retroact so as to affect existing
contracts concluded before its enactment. There will
be no impairment if the law is made to operate
prospectively only.
Scope:
 The term “contract” refers to any lawful agreement
on property or property rights, whether real or
personal, tangible or intangible.
 The agreement may be executed or executory.
 The parties may be private persons only, natural or
artificial, or private persons on the one hand and the
government or its agencies on the other hand. But it
does not cover licenses and marriage contracts.
Purposes of Non-Impairment:
1. To implement freedom of contracts;
2. To protect property rights;
3. To preserve integrity of contracts against
unwarranted interference of the State.
Limitations:
1. Police power – public welfare > private property
- municipal zoning ordinance > title to property
2. Eminent Domain – Kabiling v. NHA
3. Taxation – Congress can withdraw and grant tax
exemptions.
 Franchises (thus the withdrawal of corporate income
tax exemption with PAGCOR, although private
parties will be affected, is still not void as franchises
are not covered by non-impairment), privileges,
licenses not included in Sec. 10.
 Extent to the degree of change is IMMATERIAL. It
is not a question of degree, manner, or cause, but of
encroaching in any respect or its obligation or
dispensing with any part of its force. However, not all
impairment is prohibited. Only those which are
unreasonable.
 Rutter v. Esteban – Moratorium Laws are valid,
being an emergency measure adopted in financial
distress. The postponement of fulfillment of
obligation by the State through the medium of
legislation; the essence of which is the application of
sovereign power. However, in this case, the period
was already unreasonable, it works injustice to
creditors who are practically left at the mercy of
debtors.
To determine validity of Moratorium Laws:
a. Definite as to period of suspension;
b. Reasonable period;
c. Reasonable to both parties.
The two justifications that made the government vary the
contract of the stipulating parties as given by the Supreme
Court:
1) In every arrangement all existing laws are deemed included
to the extent that the parties cannot stipulate such agreements
which are contrary to law public moral, health or public
policy.
2) All contracts are made subject to an implied reservation of
the protective power of the state.
 Ortigas and Co. v. Feati Bank and Trust Co –
(restriction that property should be solely used for
residential purposes but was zoned to become
commercial) – zoning regulation may impair the
contractual relations of parties. It was a valid exercise
of police power to safeguard and promote health,
safety, peace, good order, and general welfare of
people in the locality.
 Lozano v. Hon. Martinez – checks are not contracts
but commercial documents. Only contracts which
contravene policy are unlawful. BP 22 does not
impair the freedom to contract. Freedom to contract,
which is constitutionally guaranteed, only covers
lawful contracts. Thus, those that contravene public
policy are not lawful. (You know this case by heart)
 Ganzon v. Inserto – courts cannot change to
obligations of the parties. Real estate mortgage
cannot be substituted with a surety bond. It would
effect a change in the terms and conditions.
Not all quitclaims are invalid except:
1. Where there is a clear proof that the waiver was
wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person;
5
 2. Where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on
their face.
x Timber License = mere privilege, not a contract
x Marriage Contract
x Public Office
x Incentives = mere bonus, not a demandable obligation
 Backpay certificates: may be used as payment for
PNB. But for non-governmental agencies, they
cannot be compelled to accept, otherwise, there
would be an impairment.
11: Free Access To Courts
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of
this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions
for violations of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families.”
 Rights are available only during CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION. Any questioning initiated by law
enforcement officers after a person has been taken in
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of
action in any significant way.

“Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies
and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.”
 Free access to the courts = should not be denied
access on account of social standing, race, ethnicity,
background, etc.
 Not without any fee, but with reasonable fee.
The following are prohibited from being an assisting counsel:
1. Those directly affected;
2. Those charged with the conduct of preliminary
investigation;
3. Those charged with the prosecution of offenses.
RA 7438 “Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under
Custodial Investigation”

Pauper Suits: (Rule 3, Sec. 21) Be informed in a language NON-WAIVABLE

- Poverty can only be suffered by natural persons since or dialect known to him the
the lack of money to support basic needs like shelter, reason of his arrest, and
food, etc. cannot be experienced by juridical entities. show the warrant of arrest.
Remain silent and evidence WAIVABLE
Indigent Party: (Rule 141, Sec. 18) may be used against him.
- No money or property sufficient for food, shelter, and Assisted by competent WAIVABLE but should be
basic necessities. counsel, if cannot afford, be in writing and in presence of
- Not exceed ‘minimum wage’ and no property of provided with one. a counsel.
300K = exempt from legal fees. Be informed that no CI shall
- The ‘minimum wage’ part can only be experienced be conducted except in
by natural persons. presence of a counsel or
when the rights are waived.
 In Re: Query of Mr. Roger Prioreschi – (Good Right to communicate by
Shepherd Foundation claiming legal and filing fee most expedient means to
exemption) – their insolvency is not equal to poverty lawyer, family, etc.
as insolvency merely means that the liabilities are That he may wish not to be
already greater than the assets. As a juridical entity questioned.
although serving the poorest of the poor, it cannot Any waiver does not bar
suffer poverty. And if ever allowed to be exempt, it him from invoking it at any
may be prone to abuse. Also would be time- time during the process.
consuming to comply with documents. Statement obtained in WAIVED if not objected
violation shall be during trial.
inadmissible.
12: Custodial Investigation
x If only General Inquiry
“Any person under investigation for the commission x If no deprivation of liberty yet
of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have
a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own  Ho Wai Pang v. People – (shabu in boxes of
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of the counsel, chocolate at the airport) – if the rights were violated
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived during custodial investigation, he will only be
except in writing and in the presence of counsel. acquitted if the confession obtained during such is the
No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or sole basis for his conviction. If there are other pieces
any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used of evidence, the accused is not entitled to acquittal.
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,

6
Extra-judicial confessions – may be validly made in writing,
signed by person in presence of his counsel, or in a valid
waiver, in presence of his parents, older brother or sister,
spouse, mayor, judge, priest, minister, superintendent.
Involuntary or Coerced Confessions:
1) Coerced confessions – product of 3rd degree methods,
such as torture, force, violence, threat, or
intimidation;
2) Uncounseled Statements given without the benefit of
the Miranda warning.
 Gamboa v. Cruz – (arrested for vagrancy, identified
in line up as robber) – police line up is not a part of
custodial investigation, as he has not been held yet to
answer for a criminal offense. When the process had
not yet shifted from the investigators to the
accusatory as when police investigation does not
elicit a confession, the accused may not yet avail of
the services of a lawyer.
 People v. Macam – (robbery with homicide, taken to
police headquarters, then brought to hospital to be
identified by surviving victims) – police line up after
CI (already a critical stage) has started should be with
the assistance of a counsel. Accused should be
confronted with both intricacies of the law and
advocacies of a public prosecutor. After the start of a
CI, any identification of uncounseled accused shall
be inadmissible.
 People v. Judge Ayson – (estafa charge as a clerk in
PAL Baguio) – administrative investigations are not
part of custodial investigation. Ramos was not under
CI. He, in fact, voluntarily answered questions on the
1st day of the administrative proceedings and agreed
to be recorded.
 People v. Pinlac – (robbery with homicide and
ordered to reenact) – burden on prosecutor to
establish that all constitutional rights have been
accorded without objection. Constitutional rights
must not only be read but also explained in its
practical terms.
 People v. Bolaños – (charged with murder and was
interrogated on board the police patrol on the way to
the police station) – thus, should have been informed
of his rights.
 Confession or admission to private individuals is only
admissible if it is free from undue influence from
police authorities.
 People v. Andan – (rape with homicide of 2 nd yr
nursing student) – the confessions made to the mayor
was made voluntarily and spontaneously, thus, are
not covered by the rights on custodial investigation.
The confession was not made in response to an
interrogation, Andan voluntarily sought the mayor as
a confidant. Confessions to the media if free from
undue influence of authorities shall likewise be
admissible. The constitutional right does not govern
the relationship of private individuals to another
individual. Only between an individual and the State.
 Navallo v. Sandiganbayan – audit examinations are
not part of the custodial investigation because the
audit examiner is not a part of the law enforcement.
 People v. Dy – (Boracay gunshot murder) –
spontaneous statement not elicited through
questioning is not part of custodial investigation. Res
gestae rule under the Rules of Court.
 People v. Alicando – (rape with homicide of a 4 y/o,
confessed story [thus revealing where the evidence
could be found] without a counsel) – the exclusionary
extends to evidence obtained through uncounseled
confession. “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
13: Right to Bail
“All persons, except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided
by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
Excessive bail shall not be required.”
Bail: security given for the release of a person in custody of
the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon
his appearance before any court as may be required.
- Emanates from the right to be presumed innocent.
 Any person under detention, even if no formal
charges have yet been filed can invoke the right to
bail. However, only those in custody because it is
premature to file petition for bail for someone whose
freedom has yet to be curtailed.
 Right to bail may be waived. Personal to the accused
and waiver would not be contrary to law, public
order, public policy, good customs, morals, or
prejudicial to a 3rd person. (Waiver = failure to call
attention for bail & conviction cos moot and
academic)
 Hearing is required although it is a matter of right in
order to determine the amount of bail.
Kinds:
1. As a Matter of Right – absolute; RP <
2. Discretionary – RP; denied if guilt is strong. If the
guilt is not strong, then it becomes a matter of right.
7

Exceptions on Who May Apply for Bail:
1. Reclusion Perpetua + Guilt is Strong
2. Military members undergoing Court Martial
Proceedings
Forms:
1. Cash deposits
2. Corporate surety
3. Property bond
4. Recognizance
Four Duties of a Judge:
1. Notify prosecution of the application for bail and ask
for his recommendation;
2. Conduct hearing;
3. Decide whether guilt is strong (judicial discretion);
4. If not, discharge upon approval of bail bond,
otherwise, denied.
 Four mandatory provisions under Sec. 2 of Rule 114:
a) Undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and
unless cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of
the case until promulgation of the judgment of the
RTC, irrespective of whether the case was originally
filed in or appealed to it;
b) The accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever required;
c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial
without justification and despite due process shall be
deemed a waiver of his right; to be present thereat. In
such case, the trail may proceed in absentia.
d) Bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court of
execution for final judgment.
 Basco v. Judge Rapatalo – (judge granted bail to a
murder charge without receiving evidence and
hearing) – when the grant of bail is discretionary, the
prosecution has the burden of showing that the guilt
is strong. However, the determination still remains
with the judge.
 People v. Judge Donato – (rebellion; bailable before
but became RP) – penalty at the time of application
for bail must be considered if more favorable to the
accused. The character of bail must be determined by
law in force at the time the application is pending.
 People v. Fortes – (rape of 13 y/o and denied bail) –
bail cannot be granted on accused who has been
convicted of a capital offense even if the judgment of
conviction is appealed. If the accused has already
been convicted of RP, bail is not a matter of right nor
discretion, cos guilt has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt already.
Q: Supposing a crime charged is punishable by reclusion
temporal and upon examining, an attendant aggravating
circumstance is present. Will the court consider it? Inversely,
if the offense charged is punishable by reclusion perpetua and
an attendant mitigating circumstance is present, will the court
consider it?
A: No. The court will not consider any attendant
circumstances. The determination of the right to bail whether a
right or discretion lies on the penalty imposed in the crime
charged.
 Commendador v. Villa – members of the PNP are
entitled to bail. It is only not applicable to AFP
members undergoing court martial proceedings (if
regular courts, they are entitled to post bail).
 Baylon v. Judge Sison – (Dagupan double murder) –
the three-day motion rule shall not be dispensed with.
It is mandatory in order to allow the prosecution to
secure reasonable time to adequately prepare for the
case.
 Manotoc v. Court of Appeals – (want to post bail and
travel to US for business) – the object of bail is to
relieve accused of imprisonment and the State the
burden of keeping him. But also to put accused as
much under the power of the courts. And to secure
appearance so as to answer the call of court and do
what the law may require of him. Thus a valid
justification on restriction to the right to travel.
 Government of the United States v. Judge Puruganan
– (Mark Jimenez extradition) – Under Sec. 13 of Art.
3, extradites are not entitled to bail because the
provision only applies to criminal proceedings. Bail
also does not apply on extradition of accused since
presumption of innocence is not an issue.
Extradition Criminal Proceeding
Summary in Nature Full-blown Trial
Rules of Evidence is Less More stringent in Crim
Stringent
Existence of Prima Facie Proof beyond reasonable
Case (disputable doubt
presumption)
Philippine courts may Judgment is executory upon
adjudge an individual being rendered final.
extraditable but President
has final discretion to
extradite the person.
Five Postulates in Extradition Proceedings:
1. Extradition is a major instrument for suppression of
crime – facilitating arrest and custodial transfer of
fugitives from one State to another.
2. Requesting State will afford due process to the
accused – both States accept and trust the legal
system and judicial process of each other.
3. Proceedings are sui generis – extradition proceedings
are not criminal in nature. It does not involve the
determination of guilt of the accused. His guilt or
8
 innocence will be adjudged in the court of the State
where he will be extradited.
4. Compliance shall be in good faith – the executive
voluntarily entered, the legislative ratified, thus it
presumed that it is to serve national interest.
Fulfilling promotes comity and failure paints a bad
image of court country to the world community.
“pacta sunt servanda”
5. There’s an underlying flight risk – persons to be
extradited are presumed to be flight risk. On
experience that nothing short of confinement can
ensure that accused will not flee.
Two Issues of Extradition Court:
1. W/N Warrant of Arrest was sufficient in form and
substance.
2. W/N it was filed in accordance with the extradition
treaty.
3. W/N the offender is extraditable.
Two Factors in Applying Bail in Deportation Proceedings and
Quarantine:
1. Once granted bail, applicant will not be at risk of
flight or danger to community;
2. There exist special, compelling and humanitarian
reasons, including, as a matter of reciprocity, those
cited by highest court in requesting state when it
granted provisional liberty.
 Government of Hong Kong v. Hon. Olalia –
(accepting advantage as agent & conspiracy to
defraud in Hong Kong) – exceptions to the general
rule. Modern trend on Public International Law is
primary placed on worth of individual person and
sanctity of human rights.
Trends in International Law:
1) Growing importance of individual person;
2) Higher value of human rights in international sphere;
3) Duties of countries to observe human rights;
4) Duties of courts to balance rights of individual under
fundamental law and law on extradition.
Examination of Court in US v. Puraganan –
1) State’s exercise of police power to deprive a person
of his liberty is not limited to criminal proceedings;
also deportation and quarantine which are
administrative proceedings. Also some machinery
used is machinery of criminal law.
2) To limit right to bail on extradition proceedings
would be to close our eyes to jurisprudential history.
Rule 114. Bail.
Sec. 4. Matter of Right
- Before or after conviction in MTC, MTCC, METC
- Before conviction in RTC for offenses not RP or LI
Sec. 5. Discretionary
- Upon conviction in RTC for offenses not RP or LI
- If penalty exceeds 6 yrs (not more than 20), he shall
be denied if:
a. Habitual Delinquent, Reiteration,
Recidivist, Quasi-Recidivist;
b. Escaped, violated conditions of bail
without legal justification, evaded
sentence;
c. Committed offense under probation,
parole, or conditional pardon;
d. Circumstances show probability of
flight;
e. Undue risk that he may commit another
crime.
Standards of Fixing Amount:
a. Financial ability
b. Nature and circumstances
c. Penalty
d. Character and reputation
e. Age and health
f. Weight of evidence
g. Probability of appearing in trial
h. Forfeiture of other bail
i. If fugitive of justice when arrested
j. Pendency of the case
14: Constitutional Rights of the Accused
“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall be
presumed until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the
right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and the cause of the accusation against him, to have a
speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused, provided that he
has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.”
 Section 14 only pertains to criminal proceedings, and
it applies to criminal due process as to right of the
accused. While Sec. 1 pertains to any kind of
proceeding; covers both substantive and procedural
due process, thus applies to all parties.
Ingredients to Due Process in Criminal Proceeding:
1. Court or tribunal trying the case is properly clothed
with judicial power to hear and determine the matter
before it;
2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired by it over the person
of the accused;
3. Accused has been given notice and the opportunity to
be heard;
4. That the judgment is rendered only upon a lawful
hearing.
When is jurisdiction acquired?
9
 a. Upon arrest;
b. Upon voluntary surrender
 Tatad v. Sandiganbayan – (graft charges – 1974-
1985) – unreasonable delay in the termination of the
preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan violated
the due process clause.
 Lack of preliminary investigation is a correctable
defect; can just remand. But where there is delay, one
cannot turn back time.
 Galman v. Sandiganbayan – (sham trial; fact-finding
committee on Ninoy assassination) – there was a
violation of impartial trial. The Supreme Court
cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and
travesty to stand unrectified. The Courts of the land
under it are courts of law and justice, as well as
equity.
 Alonte v. Savellano – (rape by a mayor) – in trial of
criminal cases, the constitutional presumption of
innocence in favor of an accused requires that the
accused be given the opportunity to present his
defense. Due process cannot be denied, even to the
most undeserving.
Presumption of Innocence
 Presumption of innocence is based on the principle of
justice. It is not designed to protect the guilty but to
prevent the conviction of the one who is innocent.
 It does not apply to corporate persons.
 People v. Dramayo – (noticed blood stains on the
person who reported the crime, thus was asked) –
accusation is not synonymous with guilt. It is still
incumbent on the prosecution to demonstrate that
culpability lies.
 Moral certainty is required, not absolute certainty.
Moral certainty is a degree of proof that satisfies
mind and convinces the conscientious understanding.
 Dumlao v. COMELEC – (resolution which
disqualifies the mere filing of charges) – presumption
of guilt upon the filing of charges violates the
constitutional presumption of innocence. The
legislative determination of guilt should not be
allowed to be substituted for a judicial determination.
 Marquez v. COMELEC – (criminal charges prior to
filing of certificate of candidacy) – valid cos fugitive
of justice naman. I’m not so sure.
 Preventive suspension pendente lite does not violate
right to be presumed innocent because it is not a
penalty.
Conscience Test for Conviction: Only when the conscience is
satisfied that the crime has been committed by the person on
trial should the sentence be for conviction. If the prosecution’s
evidence fails miserably to pass the conscience test, then the
accused must be acquitted.
For circumstantial evidence to warrant conviction:
1) More than one circumstance;
2) Facts from which inferences are derived are proven;
3) Combination of all is such to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
Equipoise Rule: applicable only when evidence adduced by
both parties are evenly balanced, in which case, should tilt in
favor of the accused.
Guilty Innocent
1 90%
2 75%
3 50%
 Corpus v. People – (malversation case) –
malversation may be guilt as starting point, if based
on human experience and that there’s a connection
between blah and blah. Overwhelming evidence, no
equipoise.
 Feeder International Line v. Court of Appeals – (no
clearance cargo, thus goods were forfeited) –
corporate entity, thus, no personality to invoke the
right to be presumed innocent. Can only be only by
an individual in a criminal case. Also, forfeiture
proceeding is deemed to be civil and administrative
in character, thus no need for PBRD, only substantial
evidence.
Right To Be Heard By Himself and Counsel
 Even the most intelligent person may not have the
skill in law, especially the rules of procedure, hence,
the accused may be convicted not because of guilt but
because he may not know how to establish his
innocence.
Four Obligations of the Court:
1. Inform the defendant his right to have an attorney
before being arraigned;
2. Ask if he wishes to be represented by a counsel;
3. If he so desires and is unable to employ an attorney,
the court must assign an attorney de officio to assist
him;
4. If the accused decided to procure an attorney of its
own, the court must grant him a reasonable time.
 People v. Holgado – (slight illegal detention and
appeared without counsel) – the right to counsel
during trial is not waivable, regardless the desire of
the accused, the court should appoint counsel to
represent the accused.
10
Elements of General Right to be Heard:
1. Right to be present at trial;
2. Right to counsel;
3. Right to an impartial judge;
4. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of
witnesses.
 People v. Agbayani – (robbery with homicide of
Indian nationals) – although the transcript of
stenographer does not include all facts, there is a
presumption that the court complied with the
procedure. It is incumbent upon the accused to prove
otherwise.
 Amion v. Judge Chiongson – (lawyer not appearing
thus postponement & postponement) – the
constitutional right of the accused to be heard by
counsel cannot be exercised to prejudice other
parties.
Right to Be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation
Against Him
US v. Karlsen:
1. To furnish the accused with such a description of the
charge against him as will enable him to prepare for
his defense;
2. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
protection against a further prosecution for the same
cause;
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it
may decide whether the are sufficient in law to
support conviction.
Contents of Criminal Information: (Sec 6 & 8, Rule 110)
a. Name of the accused;
b. Designation given to offense by statute;
c. Statement of acts or omissions;
d. Name of offended party;
e. Approximate time and date;
f. Place of commission of crime
 People v. Quitlong – complaint must contain specific
allegation of every fact and circumstance necessary
to constitute the crime charged. When there’s no such
allegation in the information of conspiracy, the court
finding the presence of such violates this
constitutional requirement.
 Pecho v. People – (although cannot be convicted of
RA 3019 cos not consummated, can still be convicted
under attempted estafa) – an accused may be
convicted of an offense which is necessarily included
in or necessarily includes the offense proven.
Rule 120, Sec. 4: In case of Variance between Allegation and
Proof:
“An accused can be convicted of an offense only
when it is both charged and proved. If it is not charged
although proved, or if it is not proved although charged, the
accused cannot be convicted thereof. In other words, variance
between allegation and proof cannot justify conviction for
either of the offense charged or of the offense proved unless
either is included in the other.”
Rule 120, Sec 5: When an Offense Includes or is Included in
the Other:
“An offense charged necessarily includes that which
is proved, when some of the essential elements or ingredients
of the former, as this is alleged in the complaint or
information, constitute the latter. And an offense charged is
necessarily included in the offense proved, when the essential
ingredients of the former constitute or form part of the latter.”
Proved < Charged = Proved
Homicide < Murder = Homicide
Proved > Charged = Charged
Serious P.I. > Slight P.I. = Slight P.I.
 Right to be informed of the nature and the cause of
the accusation against him may not be waived, but
the defense may waive the right to enter into a plea.
 Soriano v. Sandiganbayan – the description in the
complaint or information controls over the
designation of the offense. Charged with RA 3019,
next is bribery. Not violative cos the complaint
includes him bribing.
 Borja v. Mendoza – arraignment is an indispensable
requirement of the right of the accused to be
informed of the nature and the cause of the
accusation against him. Imperative cos this is when
accused is made aware of possible loss of his
freedom.
Right to Speedy, Impartial, and Public Trial
Factors to Consider in Speedy Trial:
1. Length of delay;
2. Reason of delay;
3. Effort of defendant to assert his right;
4. Prejudice caused to the defendant.
 People v. Tee – the Speedy Trial Act of 1998
provides that the trial period for criminal cases shall
be 180 days. It is violated when:
a. The proceedings are attended by
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays;
b. When unjustified postponements are
asked for and secured;
c. When without a cause or justifiable
motive, a long period of time is allowed
to elapse without the party having his
case tried.
 Flores v. People – when proceedings anterior to the
trial is delayed, the trial is likewise delayed. The
11
 constitution does not say that the right to a speedy
trial may only be availed only where the prosecution
of the crime is commenced and undertaken by the
fiscal. It does not exclude from its operations cases
commenced by private individuals.
 Remedy for Violation of Speedy Trial:
a. Entitled to dismissal of the case (which
is equivalent to acquittal and bars
another prosecution);
b. If under detention, to release by habeas
corpus.
 Right to a Speedy Trial may not be invoked where to
sustain the same would result in a clear denial of due
process to the prosecution.
 Failure to timely question the delay would be an
implied acceptance of such delay and a waiver of
right to question the same.
 Different Interests of Defendant to be Protected:
1. To prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration;
2. To minimize anxiety and concern of the accused;
3. To limit the possibility that defense will be
impaired.
“An impartial judge at all times manifest depth
commitment and concern to the cause of justice according to
legal norms, a cerebral man who holds in check the tug and
pull of purely personal preferences and prejudices which he
shares with the rest of his fellow mortals.”
 Mateo Jr. v. Villaluz – due process of law requires a
hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal,
and that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than
a cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
 If judge is disqualified and it seems that the trials was
not fair cos of prejudice and bias = may order new
trial.
 Judge may disqualify himself in his sound discretion
for just and valid reason.
 Garcia v. Domingo – when is a trial public? It is
public when attendance is open to all irrespective of
relationship to defendants. However, when evidence
presented may be characterized as offensive to
decency or public morals, proceedings may be
limited to friends, relatives, and counsel.
This is to serve as safeguard against any
attempt to employ our courts as instruments of
persecution.
Doctrine where it was held that trial inside
the air-conditioned chamber of a judge was not violative
of public trial. No showing that public was excluded
nor was there a transgression of his right.
 People v. Claudio Teehankee Jr. – “When a
gentleman of high social standing, intelligence, and
probity swears that testimony given under the same
oath will outweigh with him, street talk and
newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is
worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their
own ignorance and stupidity . . . Why could not the
jury law be so altered as to give men of brains and
honesty an equal chance with fools and miscreants?”
Right to an Impartial Trial – blames press
for his conviction as he claims that the publicity given to
his case impaired his right to an impartial trial. It is
true that the media gave the case a pervasive
publicity, just like all high-profile and high-stake
criminal trials. But the right of the accused to a fair trial is
not compatible to a free press. Pervasive publicity is not
per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair
trial.
 In Re: Request for Live Radio and TV Coverage of
the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder cases
against former president Estrada – public trial is not
synonymous with publicized trial. It may be filmed
for record purposes only and not for public showing.
Q: If trial in Bilibid without objections?
A: Valid as long as public is not excluded.
 Exclusion of Public is valid only when:
1. Evidence is offensive to decency;
2. Evidence is offensive to public morals
 Publicity prejudices due processes when there is an
allegation and proof that judges have been duly
influenced, not simply that they might be, by the
barrage of publicity.
 Re: Petition for Radio and TV Coverage of the
Multiple Murder Cases against Maguindanao
Governor Zaldy Ampatuan – what sets this apart
from the Estara and Aquino cases is the impossibility
of accommodating all interested parties, even private
complainant or familiar of the victims and other
witnesses inside the court. Allowed but court has to
set guidelines.
 People v. Mapalao – an accused who is tried in
absentia waives his right to present evidence as well
as his rights to bail and appeal.
 Trial in Absentia may be had when:
a. There has been arraignment;
b. Accused has been notified;
c. He fails to appear and his failure to do
so is unjustified.
 People v. Valeriano – a judgment of conviction may
be promulgated after the accused has been tried in
absentia. One who jumps bail can never offer a
justifiable reason for his non-appearance during trial.
12
 Accordingly, after trial in absentia, court can
promulgate judgment by simply recording the
judgment in a criminal docket with a copy served
upon his counsel, provided that notice to be present
was served to bondsmen, warden, or counsel.
Right to Meet Witnesses Face to Face
Purposes:
1. To cross-examine the witnesses to test their
credibility;
2. To enable the court to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses.
 US v. Javier – affidavit of a deceased person who has
not been cross-examined is inadmissible in evidence.
To prevent the conviction of an accused upon
depositions or ex parte affidavits, and particularly to
preserve the right of the accused to test the
recollection of the witness.
Also, affidavit was not a dying declaration
nor a deposition or a part of preliminary
investigation.
 Right of Confrontation is Not Absolute:
1. Express exception of dying declaration,
which may be the only evidence of the
prosecution;
2. Trial in absentia
 Right is not available during preliminary
investigation, only upon arraignment. Because in
preliminary investigation, the purpose is merely to
determine whether there is sufficient reason to issue a
warrant of arrest.
 Talino v. Sandiganbayan – if several co-accused were
tried separately, testimonies made in one case cannot
be considered in the others unless they are accorded
their right to confrontation. No accusation is
permitted to be made against his back or in his
absence nor is any derogatory information accepted if
it is made anonymously (poison pen).
Right to Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
Witnesses and Production of Evidence
 The purpose is to assure a full and unimpeded
opportunity for him to meet what in the end could be
a baseless suit or accusation.
Different Processes to Compel Attendance of Parties in Court
as Well as Witnesses:
1. Subpoena ad testificandum;
2. Subpoena duces tecum;
3. Warrant of Arrest;
4. Contempt;
5. Perpetuation of Testimony;
6. Modes of Discovery
Subpoena: process directed to a person requiring him to attend
and to testify at the hearing or trial of an action or at any
investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines or
for taking his deposition.
Two Kinds:
1. Subpoena Ad Testificandum – to compel a person to
testify
2. Subpoena Duces Tecum – to compel production of
books, records, things, or documents therein
specified, with requisites:
a. Books, records, etc. must appear prima
facie relevant to the issue; (test of
relevancy)
b. Such must be reasonably described by
the parties to be readily identified (test
of definiteness).
 Rocco v. Contreras – in this case, the test of
definiteness was satisfied, however, Rocco miserably
failed to prove relevancy.
To compel the attendance of witnesses and production of
evidence:
1. The evidence is really material;
2. The accused is not guilty of neglect in previously
obtaining the production of such evidence;
3. That the evidence will be available at the time
desired;
4. No similar evidence can be obtained.
Trial in Absentia
Purpose: To speed up the disposition of criminal cases
considering that if the accused would not always be present,
that would derail the trial of the cases.
Requisites:
a. There has been arraignment;
b. Accused has been notified;
c. He fails to appear and his failure to do so is
unjustified.
Condition for Waiver to be Present at Trial:
After arraignment, he may be compelled to appear for
identification; or provided he unqualifiedly admits he is
the person named. Reason: If he is never presented, his
defense may say that he was never identified thus entitles
him to acquittal.
Effects of Waiver:
1. Waiver of right to present evidence;
2. Prosecution can present evidence if the accused failed
to appear;
3. Court can decide without the accused’s evidence.
Presence of the Accused is Mandatory:
1. In arraignment and plea;
13
 2. Trial for identification;
3. Promulgation of sentence, unless light offenses.
15: Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not
be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when
public safety requires it.”
Writ of Habeas Corpus: A writ issued by a court directed to a
person detaining another, commanding him to produce the
body of the prisoner at the designated time and place, with the
day and cause of his capture and detention, to do, to submit to,
and to receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ
shall consider in his behalf.
Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: Where the return of
the respondent shows that the person in custody is being held
for a crime covered by the proclamation suspending the
privilege and in a place where it is effective will the court
dismiss the petition.
Suspension only applies to: persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with
invasion.
When to suspend:
1. Invasion, insurrection, rebellion;
2. Imminent danger thereof;
3. When public safety requires;
4. Mere threat under the 1935 Constitution (Lansang v.
Garcia), but not anymore under the 1987
Constitution.
Constitutional Limitations in the Suspension of the Privilege
of the Writ:
1. Must not exceed 60 days;
2. Only the Congress can extend it (thus may
indefinitely be extended by Congress upon dictation
by president);
3. Congress may also vote jointly, at least majority of
all its members in a regular or special session, to
revoke such;
4. Upon suspension of the privilege, it the duty of the
president to submit a report within 48 hours from the
suspension in person or in writing.
 Martial law does not automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
 Supreme Court has power to annul the suspension if
the same is not based on either of the two grounds:
(1) invasion or rebellion, and (2) when public safety
requires it.
 Lansang v. Garcia – the Supreme Court had authority
to determine the sufficiency of the factual bases of
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus. When individual freedom is used to destroy
social order, there emerges a circumstance which
may warrant a limited withdrawal of the guarantee or
protection, when public safety requires it.
Three Options of the President:
1. Calling out of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
2. Suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
3. Declare martial law.
 Habeas corpus restores the liberty of an individual
subject to a physical (even moral in Caunca v.
Salazar) restraint:
1. To have the cause of detention examined;
2. To ascertain whether he is held in a lawful
authority.
 May also be assailed when:
1. Deprivation of constitutional right resulting in
restraint of person;
2. Court has no jurisdiction to impose sentence; or
sentence became invalid;
3. Excessive penalty has been imposed, since such
sentence is void as to the excess;
4. Rightful custody of the person is withheld;
5. Unlawful denial of bail
x If no showing that person was being detained or restrained
of liberty. (In Re: Eufemia Rodriguez)
x If restrictive custody for precautionary measures.
 Jackson v. Macalino – the ultimate purpose of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a
person from unlawful restraint. By agreeing to post
bond, petitioner admits that he was under custody of
CID and voluntarily accepted its jurisdiction. Thus,
court can no longer continue to hear his petition
because it is an expressed admission or recognition of
the validity of his detention.
Thus, it is not allowed when:
1. The court has jurisdiction to issue process, render
judgment, and make order;
2. If jurisdiction appears after the writ is allowed.
Court: includes quasi-judicial bodies like Deportation Board
or Bureau of Immigration.
 In Re: The Issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus for
Dra. Aurora Parong et al. v. Juan Ponce Enrile – the
decision in the Lansang case was overturned. The
Court held that the detention as legal and valid
depends on the president, who may order their release
or not. It is a political question only the president
may resolve.
Q: What offenses are covered by the writ of habeas
corpus?
A: It was held in the Parong case that conditions are to be
ascertained and not the statutorily-defined offenses.
However, another answer is “rebellion or offenses
inherent in or directly connected with invasion”.
14
 respondent; right is violated;
 Persons arrested or detained in connection with 3. How threat is 3. Actions taken by
rebellion or invasion shall be judicially charged committed; petitioner to secure
within 3 days otherwise he shall be released. 4. Investigation data or information;
conducted; 4. Locations of files;
(Judicially charged, not mere filing of criminal
4. Actions taken for 5. Reliefs prayed for;
complaint before a public prosecutor) whereabouts; 6. Relevant reliefs
5. Reliefs prayed for which are just and
and relevant reliefs. equitable.

1. Amparo libertad – for protection of personal

freedom; similar to writ of habeas corpus;
2. Amparo contra leyesfor – the judicial review of the
constitutionality of statutes;
3. Amparo casasion – the judicial review of the
constitutionality of judicial decisions;
4. Amparo administrative – the judicial review of the
constitutionality of administrative actions;
5. Amparo agrario – for the protection of peasants’
rights derived from the agrarian reform process.

Writ of Habeas Writ of Amparo Writ of Habeas  In Rodriguez v. Macapagal-Arroyo, it was declared
Corpus Data that the President, as Commander-In-Chief, can be
1. Illegal confinement Persons whose right Persons whose right held responsible or accountable for extrajudicial
or detention by which to privacy in life, to privacy in life,
killings and enforced disappearances in the context of
any person is deprived liberty, or security is liberty, or security is
of his liberty; violated or threated violated or threated amparo proceedings on the basis of the doctrine of
2. Rightful custody of by an unlawful act by an unlawful act of command responsibility.
any person is withheld of any official or any official or
from person entitled employee, or of a employee, or of a
thereto private individual or private individual or 16: Speedy Disposition of Cases
entity by unlawful entity engaged I
act or omission. gathering, collecting, “All persons shall have the right to a speedy
or storing data or
disposition of cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or
information
administrative bodies.”
Not allowed: Due to:
1. When court has 1. Forced
jurisdiction; Disappearances Speedy Trial (Sec. 14) Speedy Disposition (Sec. 16)
2. when jurisdiction is 2. Extrajudicial Criminal Proceedings Criminal, administrative,
acquired after writ; Executions civil, judicial, quasi-judicial
3. When it is under a proceedings.
lawful judgment Accused only All parties
Any aggrieved party Any aggrieved party Persons affected can Trial stage only Not only during trial but also
may file. may file. compel release of when the case is submitted
1. Any member of 1. Any member of information or to for decision
immediate family immediate family update, rectify, If violated: may be dismissed. If violated: only objective is
(spouse, children, (spouse, children, suppress, or destroy to expedite the disposition of
parents) parents) database, info, file, in
the case.
2. Ascendant, 2. Ascendant, control of
descendant, collateral descendant, respondents.
relative w/in 4th degree collateral relative Factors to Consider in Speedy Trial:
of consanguinity w/in 4th degree of 1. Length of delay;
consanguinity 2. Reason of delay;
3. Concerned 3. Assertion or non-assertion of right;
citizen, association, 4. Prejudice caused by the delay.
org, institution, if
there is no known It is violated when:
member of the
family.
a. The proceedings are attended by vexatious,
Petitions should Petitions should capricious, and oppressive delays;
contain: contain: b. When unjustified postponements are asked for and
1. Personal 1. Personal secured;
circumstances of circumstances of c. When without a cause or justifiable motive, a long
petitioner; petitioner and period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
2. Personal respondent; having his case tried.
circumstances of 2. Manner of which

15
  Padua v. Ericta – speedy disposition should not result
to loss of party’s right to present evidence and either
in the plaintiff’s being non-suited or defendant’s
being pronounced liable under ex parte judgment.
 Flores v. People – an accused is entitled to a trial at
an earliest opportunity. He cannot be oppressed for
an unreasonable length of time.
17: Right Against Self-Incrimination
“No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.”
“nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare”
“no man is bound to accuse himself”
Purpose: It is simply against the legal process of extracting
from the lips of the accused an admission of his guilt. It does
not apply where evidence sought is not an incriminating
statement but an object evidence.
Basis:
1) Policy – it would place a witness against the strongest
temptation to commit perjury;
2) Humanity – it would be to extort a confession of truth
and a degree of which the law abhors.
 Right is available not only in criminal prosecutions
but also in other government proceedings including
civil actions, administrative or legislative
investigations, WHICH ARE PENAL IN
CHARACTER. (Pascual v. BME)
 Not only a right of the accused but also of any
witness to whom a question for an incriminating
answer is addressed.
 Accused may not be compelled to take witness stand,
on the reasonable assumption that the purpose of the
interrogation will be to incriminate him.
 Kernel: Not against all compulsion, only testimonial
(and also compulsion to produce object and
documentary evidence. Ex: knife used in homicide =
not allowed).
The prohibition extends to compulsion of production of
documents, papers, chatters, that may not be used as evidence
against witness, except where the state has right to inspect
such books of accounts, under police or taxing power.
No violation if through subpoena duces tecum to government
official to produce documents in his custody.
Who are entitled?
1. Accused – may refuse to take witness stand and may
refuse to answer any question.
2. Ordinary witness – may be compelled to take witness
stand but may only claim the privilege when there’s
an incriminating question.
 May be waived, directly or by failure to invoke it,
provided that waiver is certain, unequivocal, and
intelligently-made.
 Rights of the Accused in Testifying or Producing
Evidence:
Before Case is Filed After Case is Filed
Right to remain silent, to Right to refuse to be a
counsel, to be informed, no witness, not to have
torture, force, intimidation, prejudice, not to testify on
or violence, and evidence in his own behalf, and right
violation is inadmissible. against self-incrimination.
 US v. Tan Teng – (rape proven through gonorrhea) –
substance taken from the body without objection, by
a competent medical authority, is valid. What is
actually proscribed is the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communication from the
accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence
when it may be material.
 Villaflor v. Summers – (pregnancy test for adultery
case) – not violative. Justice Holmes in Holt v. US
again. Accused should not be afraid of the use of any
method which will tend to establish the truth.
 Beltran v. Samson – transcription and signature are
not just purely mechanical acts, because writing is
something more than moving a body, or hands, or
fingers. It requires application of intelligence and
attention.
 Right against self-incrimination is also available
during preliminary investigation because it will be
absurd to limit it only during trial with the evidence
adduced would be later on used during trial.
 Chavez v. Court of Appeals – an accused may invoke
his right against self-incrimination at the onset and
refuse to be presented at the witness stand.
Compulsion does not necessarily connote the use of
violence; it may be the product of unintentional
statements. Pressure which operates to overbear his
will, disable him from making a free and rationale
choice, or impair his capacity for a rationale
judgment would be sufficient.
 People v. Gallarde – photographs and fingerprinting
are not covered by the fundamental right because it is
a purely mechanical act. The assistance and guiding
hand of a counsel during the process is therefore not
required.
 Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners – right
against self-incrimination may be invoked during
non-criminal proceedings. It extends to civil and
administrative proceedings which possess a criminal
or penal character; penal in nature which imposes
penalties.
16

 Mapa, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan – charged with graft and
corruption but was granted immunity as a state
witness. However, the case in which he would be a
witness was dismissed. His immunity was still in
effect cos it was that of a transactional immunity
which he was able to satisfy the agreements.
Two Types of Transactional Immunity:
1. Transactional Immunity – is broader in the scope of
its protection. By its grant the witness can no longer
be prosecuted for any offense whatsoever arising out
of the act or transaction;
2. Used-and-Derivative Use – a witness is only assured
that his or her particular testimony and evidence
derived from it will not be used against him or her in
a subsequent prosecution.
18: Involuntary Servitude
“No person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations.
No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist
except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted.”
Exceptions:
a) Punishment for a crime whereof one has been duly
convicted. Ex: Prisoners or Community Service
b) Service in defense of the State; personal military or
civil service (Art. 2, Sec. 4).
c) Naval enlistment, to remain in service and not just
partly. Reason: nature of the job difficulty to look for
kapalit (in the high seas);
d) Posse comitatuts – ordinary persons to assist and aid
in lawful orders (Rule 113). Ex: command to help
find criminals. Justified under police power.
e) Return-to-work order in industries affected with
public interest. Ex: During strike wherein the Labor
Secretary may issue a RTW order.
f) Patria potestats – unemancipated minors; to obey
parents as long as under parental power.
 State cannot hold political prisons cos of par. 1.
Involuntary Servitude: it is every condition of reinforced or
compulsory service of one to another no matter under what
form such servitude may be disguised.
- By force, coercion, imprisonment, and against will to
labor for another, whether paid or not.
Two Types:
1. Slavery – that civil relation in which one man has
absolute power or control over the life, fortune, and
liberty of another.
2. Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude by which
the individual is restrained of his liberty and
compelled to labor in liquidation of home debt or
obligations, real or pretended, against his will.
 A person cannot be compelled to work against his
will in payment of a debt. In Caunca v. Salazar
where a house helper was detained and required to
render services for money advanced for her
transportation from the province.
 Philippine Refining Co. Workers Union v. Philippine
Refining Co. – for welfare of everybody concerned,
for interest of the public, the striking laborers were
directed to return and resume work. An employee
entering into a contract of employment, voluntarily
accepts its conditions.
 Aclaracion v. Hon. Gatmaitan – a court stenographer
from office may be compelled to transcribe his notes
under pain of contempt. A traditional mode of
exercising court’s coercive power to hold negligent
stenographer in pain of contempt if he does not
comply with the orders. His incarceration will also
not be illegal detention as it is lawful as it is a direct
consequence of his disobedience to court order.
 RH Law requiring private and non-gov’t healthcare
serviced providers to render 48 hrs. pro bono
reproductive health services is not involuntary
servitude because like the legal profession, the
medical profession is likewise a privilege which may
be regulated by the State. Moreover, the notion of
involuntary servitude connotes the presence of force,
threat, intimidation, or compulsion. Aside from non-
accreditation in Phil Health, no penalty will be
imposed. They also have liberty to choose what kind
of service.
RA 10364 “Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act”
 Trafficking – recruitment, obtaining, hiring,
providing, offering, transporting, transferring,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or
without victim’s consent or knowledge, within or
across the national borders by means of threat, force,
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power
or position, taking advantage of vulnerability, or by
giving or receiving payment.
 For exploitation, prostitution, forced labor or
services, slavery, servitude, or removal or sale of
organs.
19: Prohibited Punishments
“Excessive fines shall not be imposed, for cruel,
degrading, or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the
death penalty be imposed, unless for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for
it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee, or
the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.”
17

x Mere severity; Must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive,
wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to
shock the moral sense of the community.
Examples of Prohibited Punishment:
1. Excessive fines;
2. Cruel;
3. Degrading;
4. Inhuman punishment
 Cruel punishment: when they involve torture or
lingering death; implies that there is something
inhuman or barbarous, something more than the
making of a crime.
Guidelines for Determining Whether Punishment is Cruel and
Unusual:
1. Must not be so severe as to be degrading to the
dignity of human beings;
2. Must not be applied arbitrarily;
3. Must be acceptable to contemporary society;
4. Must not be excessive, thus serving a penal purpose.
 People v. Estoista – (firearm of father, 5-10y) – the
term of imprisonment is not cruel nor degrading
having due disregard to prevalent conditions the law
proposes to suppress or curb. But considering the
degree of malice, may be recommended to SOJ for
executive clemency.
Doctrines applicable in Death Penalty:
1) All death penalty imposed by the trial court are
subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court
regardless if the accused jumped bail or does not
intend to appeal. (People v. Esparas)
2) The Supreme Court’s power for automatic review
cannot be waived by either the Supreme Court or the
accused.
3) In essence, the trial court imposing death penalty are
merely commissioners; the imposition of such being
merely a recommendation to the Supreme Court.
4) Judgment of conviction entered on trial is not final
and cannot be executed; thus, it is wholly without
force and effect until the cause has been approved by
the Supreme Court;
5) In People v. Mateo, the Supreme Court sustained the
authority of the Court of Appeals in reviewing the
case of capital punishment as commissioners.
 Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice – death penalty is
not a cruel or unusual punishment. It is an exercise of
the state’s power to secure society against threatened
or actual evil.
Pain in itself is not a cruel punishment.
Harden v. Director of Prisons: “punishments are cruel when
they involve torture or lingering death; but the punishment of
death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as in used
in Constitution. It implies there something inhuman and
barbarous, something more than mere extinguishment of life.”
Hypo: Brownout during electrocution. Not prohibited
punishment to electrocute again since the delay was not
imposed by the State, it was beyond its power.
Why did the 1987 Constitution abolish death penalty?
1. It inflicts traumatic pain not just on the convict but
also on his family, even if penalty is not carried out;
2. No convincing evidence that it acts effectively as
deterrent for serious crimes;
3. Penology favors reformative rather than vindictive
penalties;
4. Life is too precious a gift to be placed at the
discretion of a human judge;
5. The law itself by imposing too many safeguards
manifests a reluctance to impose death penalty.
 But yes, the legislature may restore death penalty in
the future if it finds compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes.
First, describe what is meant by heinous crimes.
Second, specify and penalize by death only crimes
that qualify as heinous with definition duly proven in
court.
Third, Congress be singularly motivated by
compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
Heinous Crimes: grievous, odious, and hateful offense and
which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness,
viciousness, atrocity, and perversity are repugnant and
outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency
and morality in a just, civilized, and ordered society.
Excessive Fine: disproportionate to the offense.
20: Non-Imprisonment of Debt
“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of poll tax.”
 Debt: Civil obligation arising from a contract,
express or implied.
 Only covers the non-performance of obligations EX
CONTRACTU and not obligations arising from law,
ex delicto, quasi-delict, or delict.
 Poll Tax: Taxes assessed on the ability of person to
pay tax. Since it is not a debt but arises from the
obligation of a person to contribute his share in the
maintenance of the government, failure to pay the
same can be validly punished with imprisonment.
 Serafin v. Lindayag – criminal complaint merely
involved a failure to pay simple indebtedness. Thus,
accused should not have been convicted.
 Conversion of monetary indemnity imposed as a part
of criminal indemnity into subsidiary imprisonment
is not violative of this code. The obligation to
indemnify was not ex contractu but ex delicto.
18
  Lozano v. Martinez – the obligation to make a good
check within 3 days arises from law, not from
contract. It does not fall within the constitutional
prohibition. While a debtor cannot be imprisoned for
failure to pay his debt, he can be validly punished in
a criminal action if he contracted his debt through
fraud. BP22 is not violative as his responsibility
arises from a contract of loan but from a commission
of a crime.
21: Double Jeopardy
“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a
law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either
shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same
act.”
“non bis in idem”
“not twice for the same”
Green v. US: “the underlying idea is the State with all its
resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated
attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense,
subjecting him to embarrassment, expense, ordeal, and
compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and
insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even
though he is innocent, he may be found guilty.”
Two types of Double Jeopardy:
1. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense.
2. The act is punished by law and an ordinance, a
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a
bar to another prosecution of the same act.
 Requisites of Double (Legal) Jeopardy:
a) Valid complaint or information or other formal
charge was sufficient in form and substance to
sustain conviction;
b) Filed before a competent court;
c) To which the defendant has been arraigned and
pleaded;
d) Defendant was previously acquitted or convicted, or
the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent.
Thus, no double jeopardy
if with express consent or upon motion of the accused; cos his
action constitutes waiver of the right against double jeopardy.
Except: 1) If dismissal is based on insufficiency of evidence;
2) If it is on denial of the right to a speedy trial.
 Requisites of Double (Double) Jeopardy:
a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to second;
b) The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated;
c) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as
that in the first.
Right Against Double Jeopardy may be invoked:
1) The accused is charged with the same offense in two
separate pending cases;
2) The accused is prosecuted anew for the same offense
after he had been convicted or acquitted from such
offense;
3) The prosecution appeals from a judgment in the same
case. (Sec. 2, Rule 122 “Any party may appeal from
final judgment except if would result to double
jeopardy.)
 People v. Obsania – a defective complaint will not
put accused in double jeopardy had an amended
complaint be filed.
Waiver and Estoppel to Double Jeopardy:
1. Dismissal must be sought or induced by defendant
personally or through his counsel;
2. Such dismissal must not be based on merits and must
not necessarily amount to acquittal.
Permanent Dismissal:
1. Conviction or acquittal;
2. Prosecution’s failure to prosecute;
3. Unreasonable delay in proceedings.
Circumstances when dismissal is final, even when by motion
of the accused:
1. Based on demurrer of evidence filed by the accused
after the prosecution has rested, has an effect of
judgment on merits and operates as acquittal; (People
v. City Court of Silay)
2. Denial of right to a speedy trial; constitutes failure to
prosecute. (Esmeña v. Pogoy) Presumption:
Prosecution delays trial because they lack evidence
and is still fishing for evidence.
Provisional Dismissal:
1. Without prejudice to reinstatement before order of
dismissal becomes final; or subsequent filing of
information;
2. Dismissal based on procedural grounds.
19
Appeal by Prosecution from Order of Dismissal of Criminal
Case is NOT Double Jeopardy when:
1. Dismissal is made upon motion or express consent of
defendant;
2. Dismissal is not acquittal or based upon consideration
of evidence or merits of the case;
3. Question to be passed upon by the appellate court is
purely legal so that should dismissal be found
incorrect; case will be remanded to court of origin for
further proceedings to determine the guilt or
innocence of the defendant.
Dismissal terminates proceedings because:
1. Court is not of competent jurisdiction;
2. Evidence does not show if offense is within territorial
jurisdiction;
3. Complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in
substance and form.
Acquittal:
1. Always based on merits;
2. Evidence does not show guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
 Icasiano v. Sandiganbayan – double jeopardy does
not attach when the first action is administrative in
nature. SC case that is administrative and SB case
that is criminal.
 Double jeopardy does not attach in preliminary
investigation since it is not a trial. Thus, dismissal by
the Tanodbayan cannot bar another prosecution.
Instances when Motion for Reconsideration may be allowed
after acquittal: (Lejano v. People)
1. When there is grave abuse of discretion resulting in
loss of jurisdiction;
2. Mistrial has occurred.
- May assail by a special civil action of certiorari.
 The accused has a right of repose. Meaning, once the
convict has been acquitted on insufficiency of
evidence, he is entitled to rest and must not be
successively prosecuted by the State.
I don’t know if relevant but no harm in including, hehe.
For positive identification:
1. Positive identification of offender must come from a
credible witness;
2. Witness’ story of what he/she personally saw must be
believable, not inherently contrived.
To establish alibi:
1. Must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory
evidence;
2. That he was present at another place at the time of the
perpetration of the crime;
3. It was physically impossible for him to be at the
scene of the crime.
 People v. Balicasan – to amount to double jeopardy,
it needs a valid plea. Thus, if first plea of guilt was
exchanged with “self-defense”, the first plea was
deemed vacated, thus not meeting the requisites.
Court should have required him to enter into another
plea.
 People v. Pineda – prior conviction, acquittal, or
dismissal of the case is necessary to set in motion of
double jeopardy. If not yet decided, cannot invoke
yet the right against double jeopardy.
 Melo v. People – an offense may be said to
necessarily include another when some of the
essential ingredients of the former as alleged in the
info constitutes the latter, vice versa.
Double jeopardy does not apply when the
second offense does not exist yet at the time the first
jeopardy attaches. Ex: charged with serious physical
injuries then dies.
 People v. Adil – Doctrine of Supervening Event
(developed a scar after filing of information). Not
double jeopardy if meets the requisites:
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening
facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became
known or were discovered only after a plea was
entered in the former complaint or information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made
without the consent of the prosecutor and of the
offended party.
 People v. Relova – (installation of electrical device,
punished by ordinance & RPC) – double jeopardy
of punishment for the same act. The constitutional
protection against double jeopardy is not available
where 2nd prosecution is for an offense that is
different than the offense charged in the first or
prior prosecution, although both may be based on
the same set of acts.
But double jeopardy is available although
prior offense charged under an ordinance be
different from the offense charged subsequently
under a national statute, such as the Revised Penal Code,
provided that both offense spring from the same set
of acts.
 Determining Factor is the Identity of the Act . The
constitutional protection against double jeopardy is
available so long as the acts which constitute or have
given rise to the first offense under a municipal
ordinance are the same acts which constitute or have
given rise to the offense charged under a statute
(same criminal design).
 Same-Evidence Test: Whether evidence needed in
one case will support a conviction in the other.
20
 The offense 1 is considered as the same as to the
offense 2 under the same-evidence test if the evidence is
necessary to convict the accused in the first offense is the
same to convict the accused for the second offense. But the
Supreme Court ruled in People v. Adil that the same evidence
test is not sufficient to ____ the first jeopardy, because double
jeopardy for the same offense is not only applicable to similar
offense but also covers offenses considered as an attempt or
frustration or included or includes in the former complaint or
information.
--------------- waht -----------------------------------------------------
22: Ex Post Facto and Bill of Attainder
“No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.”
(i) Every law that makes criminal an action done
before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such action;
(A law passed in 2000 raising the age of
seduction from 18 to 25 years, effective
1990.)
(ii) Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it
greater than it was when committed;
(A law passed in 2000 designating homicide
through reckless imprudence as murder, effective 1990.)
(iii) Every law that changes punishment, and inflicts
a greater punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when committed;
(A law passed in 2000 increasing penalty for
libel from PC to PM, effective 1990.)
(iv) Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence,
and receives less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the
offense, in order to convict the offender;
(A law passed in 2000 requiring for conviction
mere preponderance of evidence
instead of proof beyond reasonable doubt
effective 1990.)
(v) Every law which, assuming to regulate civil
rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a
penalty or the deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful;
(A law passed in 2000 depriving professionals
for the right to practice for failure to vote, effective 1990.)
(vi) Every law which deprives persons accused of a
crime of some lawful protection to which they
have become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or of a
proclamation of amnesty.
(A law passed in 2000 lengthening the period for
prescription of blackmail from 5 to 10 years, effective
1990.)
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law; (must concur)
1) It refers to criminal matters;
2) It is retroactive in application;
3) It works to the prejudice of the accused.
 Theimposingof pendent lite suspension on public
officers accused of offenses involving fraudulent use
of public funds, was held not to be an ex post facto
law, because the suspension was not punitive, but
merely preventive.
 The Anti-Subversion Act was held not to be an ex
post facto law, because the prohibition applied only
to acts committed “after the approval of the Act”.
 Retroactive application of the Treaty of Extradition
of PH & Oz does not violate the prohibition against
ex post facto laws, because the Treaty is neither a
piece of criminal legislation nor a criminal procedural
statute; it merely provided for the extradition of
persons wanted for offenses already committed at the
time it was ratified.
Q: What is Bill of Attainder?
A: It is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial.
Note: A bill of attainder is always an ex post facto law, and an
ex post facto law is not always a bill of attainder.
Characteristic: It substitutes legislative fiat for a judicial
determination of guilt. Thus, it is only when a statute applies
either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members
of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them
without judicial trial that it becomes a bill of attainder.
(In England, Bill of Attainder was act of Parliament by which a man
was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death without a jury, without a
hearing, without the rules of evidence. If the penalty imposed was
less than death, the act was known as “Bills of Pains and
Penalties”.)
 Supreme Court held that the Anti-Subversion Act is
not a bill of attainder, because it does not specify the
Communist Party of the Philippines or the members
thereof for the purpose of punishment; what it does is
simply declare the Party to be an organized
conspiracy to overthrow the Government; and the
term “Communist Party of the Philippines” is used
solely for definitional purposes. The accused will be
21
 tried in proper courts and there would still be a trial.
(People v. Ferrer)
 US v. Diaz Conde – A law may be given a retroactive
effect in civil action, providing it is curative in
character, but ex post facto laws are absolutely
prohibited unless its retroactive effect is favorable to
the defendant. If a contract is legal at its inception, it
cannot be rendered illegal by any subsequent
legislation. If that were permitted then the obligations
of a contract might be impaired, which is prohibited
by the organic law of the Philippine Islands.
 Concepcion v. Garcia – The Act in question is not an
ex post facto law, as it is not penal in its nature. It has
long been settled that the phrase "ex post facto laws"
is not applicable to civil laws, but to penal and
criminal which punish a party for acts antecedently
done which were not punishable at all, or not
punishable to the extent or in the manner prescribed.
In short ex post facto laws relate to penal and
criminal proceedings, which impose punishment or
forfeitures, and not to civil proceedings, which affect
private rights retrospectively.
 Nasi-Villar v. People – The basic rule is that a
criminal act is punishable under the law in force at
the time of its commission. Thus, petitioner can only
be charged and found guilty under the Labor Code
which was in force in 1993 when the acts attributed
to her were committed, and not RA 8042. The real
nature of the crime charged is determined, not from
the caption or preamble of the information nor from
the specification of the law alleged to have been
violated–these being conclusions of law–but by the
actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.
What controls is not the designation but the
description of the offense charged.
 Salvador v. Mapa – Administrative Order 13 creates
the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
Behest Loans, and provides for its composition and
functions. Memorandum Order 61 merely provides a
frame of reference for determining behest loans. Not
being penal laws, Administrative Order 13 and
Memorandum Order 61 cannot be characterized as ex
post facto laws.
ARTICLE IV: CITIZENSHIP
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
[1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of this Constitution;
[2] Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
[3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers,
who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority; and
[4] Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of
the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act
to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who
elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),
Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in
the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall
retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission, they
are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Citizenship: Membership in a political community which is
personal and more or less permanent in character. It is a legal
device denoting political affiliation. A citizen is one who owes
allegiance to and is entitled to protection from, the State.
Nationality is membership in any class or form of political
community; more of a common racial origin. Thus, nationals
may be citizens [if members of a democratic community] or
subjects [if members of a monarchical community].
Modes of Acquiring Citizenship:
a) By birth
i) jus sanguinis
ii) jus soli
b) By naturalization
c) By marriage
By Birth:
a) Before the adoption of the 1935 Constitution:
i) Jus sanguinis. All inhabitants of the islands who were
Spanish subjects on April 11,1899, and residing in the islands
who did not declare their intention of preserving Spanish
nationality between said date and October 11, 1900, were
declared citizens of the Philippines;
ii) Jus soli in Roa Doctrine but res judicata.
b) After the adoption of the 1935 Constitution:
Only the jus sanguinis doctrine.
Dual or Multiple nationality arises from the concurrent
application of jus soli and jus sanguinis at birth or from a
refusal of certain States to accept a full application of the
doctrine of expatriation. Likewise, it may result from
marriage, or it may be produced by a formal and voluntary act.
Stateless Person – The condition of statelessness may easily
arise under ordinary international circumstances, as where a
child of parents whose home country adheres to the pure
principle of jus soli is born in a country in which the principle
of jus sanguinis is in force. In this instance, neither country
can claim him to be its national.
22

Caram provision: Those born in the Philippines of foreign
parents who, before the adoption of this [1935] Constitution,
had been elected to public office in the Islands.
If the child is illegitimate, he follows the status and citizenship
of his only known parent, the mother.
Naturalization. The act of formally adopting a foreigner into
the political body of a nation by clothing him or her with the
privileges of a citizen.
Reparation: It is the recovery of the original nationality upon
fulfillment of certain conditions.
Subjugation and Cession: These are political changes that
result in the establishment of new relations between the
inhabitants of a territory and the new sovereign.
Nationality is lost by any of the following modes:
1. release
2. deprivation
3. expiration
4. renunciation
Citizenship is lost through:
1. Naturalization in a foreign country;
2. Express renunciation of citizenship;
3. Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
Constitution or laws of a foreign country;
4. Rendering service to the Armed Forces of the United
States;
5. Cancellation of certificate of naturalization;
6. Having been declared as a deserter in times of war;
7. Marriage by express renunciation.
Modes of Naturalization:
a) Direct: Citizenship is acquired by:
- Individual, through judicial or administrative
proceedings;
- Special act of legislature;
- Collective change of nationality, as a result of
cession or subjugation; or
- In some cases, by adoption of orphan minors as
nationals of the State where they are born.
b) Derivative: Citizenship conferred on:
- Wife of naturalized husband;
- Minor children of naturalized person; or on the
- Alien woman upon marriage to a national.
Doctrine of indelible allegiance:
An individual may be compelled to retain his original
nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it
under the laws of the second State whose nationality he has
acquired.
Philippine citizenship may be reacquired through:
1. Direct act of Congress;
2. Naturalization;
3. Repatriation;
4. Taking of oath of allegiance if natural-born
Direct naturalization under Philippine laws.Under current
and existing laws, there are three (3) ways by which an alien
may become a citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
a) judicial naturalization under Commonwealth Act No. 473,
asamended;
b) administrative naturalization under Rep. Act No. 9139; and
c) legislative naturalization in the form of a law enacted by
Congress, bestowing Philippine citizenship to an alien.
 Poe v. COMELEC – Presumption regarding
paternity is neither unknown nor unacceptable in
Philippine Law. There is more than sufficient
evidence that Poe has Filipino parents and is
therefore a natural-born Filipino. Hence, the burden
of proof was on private respondents to show that
petitioner is not a Filipino citizen. Private
respondents should show that Poe’s parents were
aliens. Basis: Statistics of childbirth from year-year.
She was abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church in
Iloilo. She has typical Filipino features.
Whether as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Citizen.
Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens. Under
international law, foundlings are citizens. Generally accepted
principles of international law which include international
customs form part of the laws of the land. The common thread
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention
on the Rights of the Child and the International Convent on
Civil and Political Rights obligates the Philippines to grant
nationality from birth and to ensure that no child is stateless.
Whether Poe’s repatriation resulted to reacquisition of
natural born citizenship. A natural born citizen before he lost
his Philippine nationality will be restored to his former status
as natural born Filipino after repatriation. In passing R.A.
9225, Congress saw it fit to decree that natural born
citizenship may be reacquired even if it has been lost. It is not
for the COMELEC to disagree with the Congress’
determination.
Requisites to Acquire Domicile:
1. Residence or bodily presence in a new locality
2. Intention to remain (animus manendi) and
3. Intention to abandon the old domicile.
 Tecson v. COMELEC – The issue of whether or not
FPJ is a natural-born citizen would depend on
whether his father, Allan F. Poe, was himself a
Filipino citizen, and if in the affirmative, whether or
not the alleged illegitimacy of FPJ prevents him from
taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative
father. The Court took note of the fact that Lorenzo
Pou (father of Allan F. Poe), who died in 1954 at 84
years old, would have been born sometime in 1870,
when the Philippines was under Spanish rule, and
23
 that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place of residence
upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other
evidence, could have well been his place of residence
before death, such that Lorenzo Pou would have
benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the
Philippine Bill of 1902 effected. That Filipino
citizenship of Lorenzo Pou, if acquired, would
thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe (father of
FPJ), The 1935 Constitution, during which regime
FPJ has seen first light, confers citizenship to all
persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless
of whether such children are legitimate or
illegitimate.
Where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as
taking after the citizenship of its mother, it did so for the
benefit the child. It was to ensure a Filipino nationality for
the illegitimate child of an alien father in line with the
assumption that the mother had custody, would exercise
parental authority and had the duty to support her
illegitimate child. It was to help the child, not to prejudice
or discriminate against him.
 Republic v. Lim – the above constitutional and
statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship
apply only to legitimate children. These do not apply
in the case of respondent who was concededly an
illegitimate child, considering that her Chinese father
and Filipino mother were never married. As such, she
was not required to comply with said constitutional
and statutory requirements to become a Filipino
citizen. By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino
mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino
upon birth. Stated differently, she is a Filipino since
birth without having to elect Filipino citizenship
when she reached the age of majority.
 Co v. HREP – formal election applies only to those
who have yet to acquire Philippine citizenship and
not to those who are already Filipinos when the time
to elect comes. (was naturalized through derivative
naturalization when his father became a naturalized
Filipino). Side note: The question of citizenship may
only be attacked directly.
 In Re: Application for Admission to the Bar of
Vicente Ching – election of Philippine citizenship is
a formal and express act. C.A. No. 625 prescribes the
procedure that should be followed in order to make a
valid election of Philippine citizenship. Legitimate
children born of Filipino mothers may elect
Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention
"in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party
concerned before any officer authorized to administer
oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil
registry. The said party shall accompany the
aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the
Constitution and the Government of the Philippines.
The phrase "reasonable time" has been interpreted to mean
that the election should be made within three (3) years from
reaching the age of majority. However, we held in Cuenco vs.
Secretary of Justice, that the three (3) year period is not an
inflexible rule.
 Cabiling Ma v. Fernandez – Petitioners complied
with the first and second requirements upon reaching
the age of majority. It was only the registration of the
documents of election with the civil registry that was
belatedly done. The SC ruled that under the facts
peculiar to the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine
citizenship has not been lost and they should be
allowed to complete the statutory requirements for
such election. The actual exercise of Philippine
citizenship, for over half a century by the herein
petitioners, is actual notice to the Philippine public
which is equivalent to formal registration of the
election of Philippine citizenship.
 Yu v. Defensor-Santiago – acquisition of foreign
passport is equivalent to renunciation of Philippine
citizenship. Express renunciation was held to mean a
renunciation that is made known distinctly and
explicitly and not left to inference or implication.
Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity,
after having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon
naturalization as a Philippine citizen resumed or
reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen,
applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport and
represented himself as such in official documents
even after he had become a naturalized Philippine
citizen. Such resumption or reacquisition of
Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent with his
maintenance of Philippine citizenship.
 Maquiling v. COMELEC – The use of foreign
passport after renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is
a positive and voluntary act of representation as to
one’s nationality and citizenship; it does not divest
Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it
recants the Oath of Renunciation required to qualify
one to run for an elective position.
 Frivaldo v. COMELEC – Frivaldo, Governor of
Sorsogon. But attacked cos he is a naturalized
American citizen. Claimed it was just to protect
himself from Marcos and the Martial Law era. He
claims that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship
by virtue of valid repatriation. He claims that by
actively participating in the local elections, he
automatically forfeited American citizenship under
the laws of the United States of America. The Court
stated that that the alleged forfeiture was between
him and the US, his adoptive country. If he really
wanted to drop his American citizenship, he could do
so in accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by CA
No. 473 and PD 725. Philippine citizenship may be
reacquired by direct act of Congress, by
naturalization, or by repatriation.
24
This country of ours, for all its difficulties and limitations, is
like a jealous and possessive mother. Once rejected, it is not
quick to welcome back with eager arms its prodigal if
repentant children. The returning renegade must show, by an
express and unequivocal act, the renewal of his loyalty and
love.
 Republic v. Dela Rosa – Also concerning Frivaldo,
the governor of Sorsogon. Judge Dela Rosa made
irregularities in procedure of the hearing:
1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead of the scheduled
date of hearing, without a publication of the order advancing
the date of hearing, and the petition itself; must be in full text
to acquire jurisdiction;
(2) the petition was heard within six months from the last
publication of the petition;
(3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before
the finality of the judgment; and
(4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without observing the
two-year waiting period.
 Labo v. COMELEC – 1998, Ramon Labo, Mayor of
Baguio City. His rival, Luis Lardizabal, asserts that
he’s an Australian citizen, cos of his marriage to an
Australian citizen. But marriage subsequently
declared void for being bigamous. Labo cannot
sustain office. He was naturalized as an Australian in
1976. It was not his marriage to an Australian that
made him an Australian. It was his act of
subsequently swearing by taking an oath of
allegiance to the government of Australia. He cannot
also claim that when he lost his Australian
citizenship, he became solely a Filipino. To restore
his Filipino citizenship, he must be naturalized or
repatriated or be declared as a Filipino through an act
of Congress – none of this happened.
 Aznar v. COMELEC – Aznar questioned the COC of
Lito Osmeña as governor of Cebu cos he’s an
American citizen for obtaining an Alien Certificate of
Registration and Immigrant Certificate of Residence.
ACR is not among the three modes of losing
Philippine Citizenship. Philippine courts are only
allowed to determine who are Filipino citizens and
who are not. Whether or not a person is considered an
American under the laws of the United States does
not concern us here.
 Mercado v. Manzano – Dual allegiance and not dual
citizenship is proscribed by the Constitution. Facts
proved he’s a dual citizen. Respondent was held to
have renounced his US citizenship when he attained
the age of majority and registered himself as a voter
in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998. By electing
Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same
time forswear allegiance to the other country of
which they are also citizens and thereby terminate
their status as dual citizens. It may be that, from the
point of view of the foreign state and of its laws, such
an individual has not effectively renounced his
foreign citizenship. That is of no moment.
. Dual Citizenship arises, when, as a result of the concurrent
application of the different laws of two or more
states, a person is simultaneously considered a
national by the states.
. Dual Allegiance, on the other hand, refers to a person, in
which a person simultaneously owes by some
positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual
citizenship is a result of some individual volition.
The following are instances where a citizen of the
Philippines may possess dual citizenship:
1. Those born of Filipino mothers and/or mothers in
foreign countries which follows the principle of Jus Soli.
2. Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and
alien fathers if by the law of their father’s country such
children are citizens of such country.
3. Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter’s
country, the former are considered citizens, unless by
their act or omission, they are deemed to have renounced
Philippine Citizenship.
 Bengzon v. HRET – Cruz was born in the Philippines
in 1960, the time when the acquisition of citizenship
rule was still jus soli. However, he enlisted to the US
Marine Corps and he was naturalized as US citizen in
connection therewith. He reacquired Philippine
citizenship through repatriation under RA 2630 and
ran for and was elected as a representative.
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who
lost their citizenship due to:
(1) desertion of the armed forces;
(2) service in the armed forces of the allied forces in WWII;
(3) service in the Armed Forces of the US at any other time;
(4) marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
(5) political and economic necessity.
As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization,
repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of
allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering
said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the
person concerned resides or last resided. Moreover,
repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality.
 Altajeros v. COMELEC – Philippine citizenship is an
indispensable requirement for holding an elective
public office, and the purpose of the citizenship
qualification is none other than to ensure that no
alien, i.e., no person owing allegiance to another
nation, shall govern our people and our country or a
unit of territory thereof. Now, an official begins to
govern or to discharge his functions only upon his
proclamation and on the day the law mandates his
term of office to begin.
Procedure for Election of Philippine Citizenship:
a) Election is expressed in a statement to be signed and sworn
to by the party concerned before any official authorized to
administer oaths. Statement to be filed with the nearest Civil
Registry. The statement is to be accompanied with the Oath of
25
Allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the
Philippines
b) When to elect. Within three (3) years from reaching the age
of majority except when there is a justifiable reason for the
delay.
c) The right to elect Philippine citizenship is an inchoate right;
during his minority, the child is an alien.
d) The constitutional and statutory requirements of electing
Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children.
The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitute a positive act of electing
Philippine citizenship.
Naturalization under C.A. 473.
a) Qualifications:
[a] Not less than 21 years of age on the date of the hearing of
the petition;
[b] Resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not
less than 10 years; may be reduced to 5 years if he honorably
held office in Government, established a new industry or
introduced a useful invention in the Philippines, married to a
Filipino woman, been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines
or in any of the branches of education or industry for a period
of not less than two years, or born in the Philippines;
[c] Good moral character; believes in the principles underlying
the Philippine Constitution;
[d] Own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than
P5,000.00, or must have some known lucrative trade,
profession or lawful occupation;
[e] Speak and write English or Spanish and any of the
principal Philippine languages;
[f] Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the
public or private schools recognized by the gov’t.
b) Disqualifications:
[a] Opposed to organized government or affiliated with any
association or group of persons who uphold and teach
doctrines opposing all organized governments;
[b] Defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of
violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or
predominance of their ideas;
[c] Polygamists or believers in polygamy;
[d] Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
[e] Suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious
disease;
[f] Who, during the period of their residence in the
Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or
who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
[g] Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines
is at war, during the period of such war;
[h] Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not
grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or
subjects thereof.
c) Procedure:
i) Filing of declaration of intention one year prior to the filing
of the petition with the Office of the Solicitor General. The
following are exempt from filing declaration of intention:
ia) Born in the Philippines and have received their primary
and secondary education in public or private schools
recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or
nationality.
ib) Resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the
filing of the petition, and enrolled his children in elementary
and high schools recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality.
ic) Widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his
intention to become a citizen of the Philippines and dies
before he is actually naturalized.
ii) Filing of the petition, accompanied by the affidavit of two
credible persons, citizens of the Philippines, who personally
know the petitioner, as character witnesses. order that there be
a valid publication, the following requisites must concur:
(a) the petition and notice of hearing must be published;
(b) the publication must be made once a week for three
consecutive weeks; and
(c) the publication must be in the Official Gazette and in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province where the
applicant resides.
iiia) Publication is a jurisdictional requirement. The failure to
state all the required details in the notice of hearing, like the
names of applicant’s witnesses, constitutes a fatal defect.
iv) Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire
proceedings.
v) Hearing of the petition.
vi) Promulgation of the decision.
vii) Hearing after two years. At this hearing, the applicant
shall show that during the two- year probation period,
applicant has
(i) not left the Philippines;
(ii) dedicated himself continuously to a lawful calling
or profession;
(iii)  not been convicted of any offense or violation of
rules; and
(iv) not committed an act prejudicial to the interest of
the nation or contrary to any Government announced
policies.
viii) Oath taking and issuance of the Certificate of
Naturalization.
26
d) Effects of naturalization:
In Mo Ya Lim Yao, the Court said that the alien wife of
the naturalized Filipino need not go through the formal
process of naturalization in order to acquire Philippine
citizenship. All she has to do is to file before the Bureau
of Immigration and Deportation a petition for the
cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration
(ACR). At the hearing on the petition, she does not have
to prove that she possesses all the qualifications for
naturalization; she only has to show that she does not
labor under any of the disqualifications.
e) Denaturalization.
a. Naturalization certificate is obtained fraudulently
or illegally;
b. If, within 5 years, he returns to his native country
or to some foreign country and establishes residence there;
c. Petition was made on an invalid declaration of
intention.
d. Minor children failed to graduate through the fault
of the parents either by neglecting to support them or by
transferring them to another school.
e. Allowed himself to be used as a dummy.
Naturalization under RA 9139 (for Aliens)
a) Qualifications.
(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines and residing
therein since birth;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of
age, at the time of filing of his/her petition;
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and
believes in the underlying principles of the Constitution;
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and
secondary education in any public school or private
educational institution dully recognized by the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, where Philippine history,
government and civics are taught and prescribed as part of the
school curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any
race or nationality: Provided, That should he/she have minor
children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them in
similar schools;
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business,
profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she derives
income sufficient for his/her support and if he/she is married
and/or has dependents, also that of his/her family: Provided,
however, That this shall not apply to applicants who are
college degree holders but are unable to practice their
profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of
their citizenship;
(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak
Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and
evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.
b) Disqualifications:
(same with CA 473)
c) Procedure:
Petition for Citizenship. - a petition of five (5) copies legibly
typed and signed, thumbmarked and verified by him/her, with
the latter's passport-sized photograph attached to each copy of
the petition, and setting forth the following:
(a) The petitioner's name and surname, and any other name
he/she has used or by which he/she is known;
(b) The petitioner's present and former places of residence;
(c) The petitioner's place and date of birth, the names and
citizenship of his/her parents and their residences;
(d) The petitioner's trade, business, profession or occupation,
and if married, also that of his/her spouse;
(e) Whether the petitioner is single or married or his/her
marriage is annulled. If married, petitioner shall state the date
and place of his/her marriage, and the name, date of birth,
birthplace, citizenship and residence of his/her spouse; and if
his marriage is annulled, the date of decree of annulment of
marriage and the court which granted the same;
(f) If the petitioner has children, the name, date and birthplace
and residences of his/her children;
(g) A declaration that the petitioner possesses all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications under this Act;
(h) A declaration that the petitioner shall never be a public
charge; and
(i) A declaration that it is the petitioner's true and honest
intention to acquire Philippine citizenship and to renounce
absolutely and forever any prince, potentate, State or
sovereign, and particularly the country of which the applicant
is a citizen or subject.
(2) The application shall be accompanied by:
(a) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's
birth certificate;
(b) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's
alien certificate of registration and native born certificate of
residence;
(c) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of petitioner's
marriage certified, if married, or the death certificate of his
spouse, if widowed, or the court decree annulling his
marriage, if such was the fact;
(d) Duplicate original or certified photocopies of birth
certificates, alien certificate of registration or native born
certificate of residence if any, of petitioner's minor children,
wherever applicable;
(e) Affidavit of financial capacity by the petitioner, and sworn
statements on the good moral character of the petitioner by at
least two (2) Filipino citizens of good reputation in his/her
place of residence stating that they have personally known the
petitioner for at least a period of ten (10) years and that said
petitioner has in their own opinion all the qualifications
necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in
any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act;
(f) A medical certificate that petitioner is not a user of
prohibited drugs or otherwise a drug dependent and that he/she
is not afflicted with acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS);
27
(g) School diploma and transcript of records of the petitioner
in the schools he attended in the Philippines.
(h) If gainfully employed, the income tax return for the past
three (3) years.

Special Committee on Naturalization. - with the Solicitor

General as chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, or his
representative, and the National Security Adviser, as
members, with the power to approve, deny or reject
applications.

RA 9225 “Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act”

- Former Filipinos may reacquire Philippine
citizenship by simply taking the prescribed oath of
allegiance to the Philippines, which oath does not
require the usual rejection of allegiance to any and all
other foreign states. This privilege is also available to
natural-born Filipinos who are naturalized after the
effectivity of the law in 2003 and are allowed to
retain the Philippine citizenship.
- Enjoyment of status of dual citizen will depend on
the willingness of the foreign country to share the
allegiance of the naturalized Filipino with the
Philippines.
- If country demands total allegiance = must choose. If
running for public office, must cease to be a dual
citizen.

#sohelpmeGod

28