CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

First Exam Coverage

From the Lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia

Transcribed by
1-Manresa Batch 2020-2021
CONSTI 1 1st EXAM TSN 1-MANRESA 20-21
ACADEMIC FREEDOM

1
Q: Sir, ngano naay Academic Freedom? It’s not part
of the Constitutional Law I syllabus!
A: It’s supposed to be part of Constitutional Law II on
freedoms. However, I included it here so that you
would have an appreciation on how this subject and
all other subjects are delivered.
If there are questions in our minds, for example: wala
na grant atong appeal or wala ta naka- enroll, can we
force the school to have us join the class? Can we
force the school by suing them before the courts to
allow us to enroll? Ma-discuss nato ni siya in this
topic of Academic Freedom.
Where can we find this Provision?
Article 14, Section 5, Paragraph 2 of the 1987
Constitution
“(2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning.”
Based on the provision, it would appear that it is only
enjoyed by institutions of higher learning (IHL).
Q: In our Jurisprudence, kana lang ba jud ang
Academic Freedom? What is Academic Freedom in
the first place? Who really enjoys it? Is it limited to
IHL’s?
A: Actually, based on our cases decided by the
Supreme Court these are the people or entities that
possess or enjoy Academic Freedom:
· Faculty Members
· Students
· Institutions of Higher Learning
What is Academic Freedom?
Academic Freedom for Faculty Members
It is identified with the freedom of educators to
investigate, pursue, and discuss knowledge free from
internal and external interference or pressure.
Meaning, we can do research with whatever topic we
want and publish the results without fear of reprisal
as to what the result of the study would be. It is
defended based on Freedom of Speech and of the
Press.
So mao to, naa mi (Faculty Members) freedom to do
that endeavor or research without being coerced into
not doing it.
Academic Freedom for Students
I was discussing this topic in my classes before, that
in jurisprudence, there is no express recognition of
Academic Freedom for students in our jurisdiction.
However, we now have recent cases, particularly
Pimentel Vs. LEB, na very explicit ang pagka ingon
sa Supreme Court na Academic Freedom for
students exists.
Q: So, what is it? What is the extent of Academic
Freedom for Students?
A: Jurisprudence has so far understood Academic
Freedom for Students as their right to enjoy in the
school the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, among
others.
I-recognize sa Supreme Court ang kani na mga
instances na dapat gi observe sa school because
these are the rights of the students, consistent with
his Academic Freedom. For instance, (a) academic
standards cannot be used to discriminate against
students who exercise their rights to peaceable
assembly and free speech (b) punishment must be
commensurate with the offense, and (c) students
must be given a right to due process.
So this is, insofar as our jurisprudence is concerned,
the extent of how academic freedom of the students
has been recognized under the umbrella that they
are supposed to enjoy in the school, the guarantees
of the Bill of Rights.
So isa sa pinaka-importante dira is the right to due
process. For example, na expel na ka sa school.
What's the reason? You should be given, under the
guidelines or memos the school should give notice as
2
to what the charge it is, you should be given the
appropriate time to air your side, etc.
The more traditional concept of academic freedom,
the concept that I want to emphasize is Academic
freedom of higher learning.
Academic Freedom for Institutions of Higher
Learning
Q: What is Academic Freedom for Institutions of
Higher Learning?
A: This is the freedom of the school or college to
decide and adopt, decide its aims and objectives,
and determine how these objectives can best be
obtained, free from outside coercion or interference.
So assumed in the freedom of the school to do that,
are the following freedoms.
The essential freedoms subsumed in the term
'academic freedom' encompass the freedom of the
school or college to determine for itself:
(1) who may teach it
(2) what may be taught
(3) how lessons shall be taught
(4) who may be admitted to study
DECS V. SAN DIEGO (1989)
The Court has held in this case that no one has a
constitutional right to a profession.
Meaning you cannot insist if you simply cannot
meet the standards of the school. You cannot go to
court and sue the school for that reason alone. If
you are simply not fit, to practice this profession,
you cannot force yourself into it.
Here in DECS v. SAN DIEGO, this student failed
the NMAT thrice, and there was a policy by the
CHED that if you took the test and failed it the third
time, you can no longer take it for the fourth time.
So the student wanted to take the test and wala
siya gi allow sa CHED because of this existing rule.
So nagfile siya ug case sa court to compel the
DECS to allow him to take the NMAT.
While every person is entitled to aspire to be a
doctor, he does not have the constitutional right to
be a doctor.
This is true of any other calling in which the public
interest is involved; so meaning included ang atong
profession which is lawyering, and the Court said
the closer the link, the longer the bridge to one's
ambition.
If one who wants to be a lawyer may prove better
as a plumber, he should be so advised and
advised. Of course, he may not be forced to be a
plumber, but on the other hand he may not force his
entry into the bar. San Diego must yield to the
challenged rule and give way to those who are
better prepared.
Now, this is a landmark case in Academic
Freedom.
GARCIA V. FACULTY ADMISSION COMMITTEE,
LOYOLA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY (1975)
The Supreme Court held that the admission to an
institution of higher learning does not rest on
the sole and uncontrolled discretion of the
applicant. There are the standards that must be
met. There are policies to be pursued. Discretion
appears to be of the essence, and the discretion is
upon the School.
There is the recognition in the Constitution of
institutions of higher learning enjoying academic
freedom. It decides for itself its aims and objectives
and how best to attain them. It is free from outside
coercion or interference except when overriding
public welfare calls for some restraint. So
apparently, based on this case that there is already
a recognition that academic freedom is not
absolute.
From the discussion of Justice Frankfurter: "It is the
business of a university to provide that atmosphere
which is most conducive to speculation, experiment
3
and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there
prevail "the four essential freedoms" of a university
- to determine for itself on academic grounds (a)
who may teach, (b) what may be taught, (c) how
it shall be taught, and (d) who may be admitted
to study."
Now, in that case the course laid out these 4
academic freedoms and it has been repeated in
several cases.
DLSU vs CA (2007)
There is a frat war going on, then nagka injury.
Nadetermine kinsa ang students na liable and they
were charged before the school. Disciplinary
proceedings were undertaken to determine their
liability. Now, they were expelled from the school
and they went to court to challenge the decision.
Isa sa defense sa De La Salle is part of their
academic freedom to determine who can study in
their school. So they cannot insist by way of this
case. The court agreed with DLSU, as an institution
of higher learning, possesses academic freedom
which includes determination of who to admit to
study.
It cannot be denied that the school has an interest
in teaching the student discipline, a necessary, if
not indispensable, value in any field of learning. By
instilling discipline, the school teaches discipline.
Accordingly, the right to discipline the student
likewise finds basis in the freedom "what to
teach."
CUDIA vs SUPERINTENDENT (2015)
There was this PMA student. What did he do in this
case? So na late siya in his second class, tapos
gipa explain siya na late siya gi dismiss sa previous
na class. Unbeknownst to him, nagsturyahanay si
professor 1 and professor 2. It was determined that
Cudia and his friends were lying .There was a
report made to the higher ups of the PMA to
determine if Cudia should be disciplined. It became
a big issue eventually, because of the fact that this
student lied. When it reached the Honor
Committee, there ultimate decision was to expel
him from the School. Cudia went to court to
challenge the expulsion.
Q: Who will prevail? Can Cudia insist that he
should be retained in school? On the other
hand, what is the freedom of the school? What
can it do? What are its rights in this case?
A: So the Supreme Court started its discussion by
making this statement: The school-student
relationship is contractual in nature.
Kita, we are enrolled in the Ateneo. so we have a
contract with the school. Once we are admitted, our
enrollment is not only semestral, but also for the
entire period we are expected to complete, and this
institution, this school has an obligation to give its
students a fair opportunity to complete the course
they seek to pursue. So mao na sya ang duty sa
school. Give the students a fair opportunity to
complete our course.
Now, this relationship, however, is reciprocal. Dili
pwede na ang school lang ang naay obligation. The
school undertakes to provide the students with
education to give them, to enable them to pursue
higher educational profession. On the other hand,
the students, as part of the contract, part of the
bargain has to abide by the academic requirements
of the school, and observe its rules and regulations.
So kung dili ka makacomply with the academic
requirements, rules and regulations, that could be a
ground for disciplinary sanctions.
Of course, when we build a school, dili pwede na
walay rules and regulations because unsa,
mabungkag ang eskwelahan and anyone can just
vandalize whatever he or she wants. So dapat naa
tay rules and regulations that we need to follow for
the maintenance of an orderly educational system
which is not only good for the school but also for
the students, the faculty, and of course, the
property of the school.
4

Now, so mao na sya ang premise. Now the PMA,
naa syay contract with Cudia. Cudia, on the other
hand, has the correlative obligation to abide by the
educational standards as well as the discipline that
is required of him. Nah naexpel man sya, because
of what he did, by lying about the "late" issue.
Q: Can he insist that the school should set
aside its decision or can the school invoke its
academic freedom to justify his expulsion? So
does the PMA enjoy academic freedom that
authorizes it to impose disciplinary measures
and punishment as it deems fit consistent with
the needs of the academy?
A: Of course the Supreme Court said YES! This
school is the primary training and educational
institution of the Armed Forces of the Philippines. It
is an institution of higher learning and therefore it
has the right to academic freedom. And isa sa
ilahang rules and regulations na giset into place sa
academy is kaning ilang Honor Code, kaning ilang
Honor System.
The Honor Code is a set of basic and fundamental
ethical and moral principle, so it is the minimum
standard for cadet behavior. It should be their
guiding spirit behind their action. Maintain the
highest standard of honor. This cadet is bound by
the Honor Code. So if you cannot follow the honor
code, walay kay honor, so you cannot stay in the
school. And to think na nalate lang sya and then
naa lang syay excuse, which ripened into a lie, na
natanggal sya sa school. So inana kastrict ang
ilang standards sa PMA. This code constitutes the
foundation of the cadet's character development, so
kung wala kay honor, nganong naa pa man ka sa
PMA? Basically that's what the Supreme Court is
saying. They must possess this honor to remain
part of the corps. This is the primary means of
achieving character development, and way by
which the academy has chosen to identify those
who are deficient in conduct. The first tenet of the
code is "Do not lie." Ayaw og pangatik. So ang first
tenet jud iyang naviolate. Cadets violate this code
by lying, which is when they make oral or written
statements which is contrary to what is true, or use
that for information with intent to deceive and
mislead. And that's what he did here. Ang iyang
statement na nalate sya because the professor was
late in dismissing them; it was untrue.
Gipangugatan jud niya ni nga iyahang defense, and
later on nakita na nangatik jud diay sya, and mao
tong resulta.
He lied, and he also accepted that violation of the
Honor Code warrants dismissal, so there's no more
dispute to resolve. The fact that nienroll ka sa PMA,
meaning giaccept nimo ang responsibilities, na
kung unsa ang i impose sa school, you follow that.
The sanction is set forth and Cudia, by contract with
the school risked this when he entered the PMA. So
the Court did not allow him to reenroll and did not
set aside the decision to expel him from the school
because the school enjoys this academic freedom.
So again balik ta sa atong discussion, that the
school has the right to determine who may
teach, what may be taught, how it shall be
taught, and who may be admitted to study. So
kaning rules and regulations sa school set forth
because freedom na sa school to determine that.
And of course, the school also has the freedom to
determine kung kinsa and magstudy padayon sa
ilaha. So mao na sya ang reason nganong wala na
set aside ang iyang expulsion. Because those are
the freedoms enjoyed by the PMA as an institution
of higher learning.
SON v. UST
If an institution terminates the employment of its
faculty because they do not have a master's
degree, this master's degree was required by the
Ched, and the UST was re-enforcing the policy of
the CHED na dapat ang mga teachers that are
teaching these subjects should have a master's
degree. If not, matanggal sila.
So the UST imposed that. Katong mga teachers
probationary pa sila. They were told by the UST to
get a master's degree, but they did not. So they
5
were dismissed by the school. They filed a case for
illegal dismissal against the UST and then the
Supreme Court said that it enjoys academic
freedom. So walay illegal dismissal in this case.
It is a prerogative of the school to set the highest
standards of efficiency for its teacher, because
quality education is a mandate of the constitution.
So again, prerogative of the school ha! Academic
freedom. WHO MAY TEACH. So katong teacher na
wala tong qualifications, di pud niya mainsist na
dapat magteach sya sa school. Just like a student
no. If he or she does not meet the qualifications
then he or she cannot insist. If wala sa iyaha tung
requirement na ginapangayo sa school, he or she
cannot insist because it is the school that
determines who may teach. It's part of its academic
freedom.
Pimentel v. LEB
Also this is a more recent case of 2019, PIMENTEL
v LEB.
PhilSat ni. I know people who have been rejected
by schools, law schools, because they did not get a
passing grade in the PhilSat. Now karon, nagfile na
og kaso ang mga students na wala nakaPhilSat,
pati ang mga professors, challenging he directives
of the LEB, among others is katong PhilSat ug
katong related sa atong discussion no, that
requirement that required teachers to get a Master's
Degree imposed NOT BY THE SCHOOL, BUT BY
THE LEB.
So makita ninyo ang difference. Sa discussions
earlier, ang nagset sa guidelines sa disciplinary
measures ug ang master's degree, is ang
school itself. Now karon, there is an entity
which is outside the school, the LEB, which is
mandating that the school should observe
these standards.
Q: Tama ba ang gihimo sa LEB?
A: No.
So naay balaod, RA 97662 which created the LEB.
It is an executive agency, so part sya sa executive
department but is separate from the DECS, DepEd.
Diba naa pa toy issue gani na between the LEB
and this DepEd ba to, na nagissue ang LEB ng
Master's degree, and issue sya sa naay PhD etc.
because they are separate?
Anyway, so that's another issue for us. We would
be discussing the matter on the issuances of the
LEB which violate academic freedom.
So ang purpose aning LEB, administer the legal
education system in the country, consistent with the
provisions of the law, supervise law schools
consistent with its powers and functions, set the
standards for the accreditation of the law schools,
take into account size of enrollment, qualification of
the members of the faculty, etc. So dili ka
makapadagan og law school kung dili ka tagaan og
go signal ni LEB. Kung wala ilang approval. The
LEB is also empowered to accredit law schools
that meet the standards of accreditation. In fact, the
LEB also has the power to remove your
accreditation, if you fail to meet its standards. So
mao na sya. Si LEB ang magset aning mga
standards. Legal education, supervision of law
schools, accreditation of law school. So karon,
ilahang mga issuances, kani nagissue silag
memorandum order, requiring this PhilSat, this
nationwide uniform law school admission test for
applicants of the basic law courses. Mura syag
NMAT. Before you can enroll in a law school, you
have to pass this test.
So another issuance sa PhilSat, so basically, mao
na si PhilSat, LEBMO 7-2016. Naa pud ning
LEBMO 17-2018 requiring law school professors to
have a master's degree, etc. and LEB
Memorandum Circular for the PhilSat Eligibility
Requirement for Freshmen.
Now, karon, for AY 2017-2018, walay applicant sa
law school na ginaallow nga maadmit sa law school
if they have not taken and passed the PhilSat,
consistent with the issuances of the LEB. So mao
to. Nagfile na silag case sa Supreme Court
6
assailing the mandatory imposition of the PhilSat.
Q: Where did this come from? What is the legal
basis of this?
A: The argument against the Philsat is that it
violates the academic freedom of law schools
and their right to education no. It violates
academic freedom because it interferes with the
school's exercise of the freedom to choose who
to admit.
Diba ang school man ang naay power ana, kung
kinsa nag pwede ma admit sa ilaha. But the LEB
through this issuance to this PHILSAT is making it a
rule that, school will not decide and PHILSAT ang
mag decide kung maka enroll ba ning student or
dili. So the argument was that, that's not supposed
to be the rule it is the school that determines who
can enroll not the LEB.
Now, the Solicitor General arguing in behalf of the
validity of the law and the issuance of the LEB,
argues that the PHILSAT the sa minimum standard
to enter into law school. In fact, this is not so
different from the NMAT and the LSAT of the other
schools like that of UP, there is no difference
basically and those entrance exams cannot be
struck down as invalid or illegal so why treat the
PHILSAT differently.
Isa pa ka argue the SolGen, that the PHILSAT now
with the provisions of the law that created the LEB
not violate academic freedom because this
standards are fair, reasonable, equitable, etc. so
mao na ang arguments. Wala may violations
basically ana ang Solicitor General. Wala may
violations on academic freedom because the
regulation, the imposition of the PHILSAT is a
reasonable, fair requirement, and the LEB is
empowered to do that.
So what is the PHILSAT anyway, its an aptitude
test measuring the examinees communications and
language proficiency, critical thinking and
reasoning. What is the basis of the PHILSAT?
katong gimention nato ganina na LEB
memorandum order which is under the power of the
LEB based on the law to prescribe the minimum
standard for law admission. So diri gi-course sa
LEB ilang power to impose this PHILSAT and the
policy is to improve the quality of legal education by
requiring all those, who want to be admitted to law
school to take this admission test. In other words,
gina-sala lang sa LEB kung kinsa tong karapatdap
maka enroll sa law school, mao lang na ang
purpose sa PHILSAT ana ang LEB.
Now, kani bang issuance sa LEB which involve the
PHILSAT, making it a mandatory requirement
before a student be admitted into a law school as
well as the requirement for professors should have
a master's degree. Do these issuances violate the
academic freedom of institutions of higher learning?
Remember the four freedoms: who may teach;
what to teach; how will it be taught; and who will be
admitted to study. Kani ba na mga issuances naka
violate ba sa right sa school to exercise those
freedoms. YES, ana ang Supreme Court that the
act of the LEB of excluding and restricting qualifying
admissions to law schools. These acts violates the
institution's academic freedom on who to admit.
Hence, kini na mga issuances were declared to be
unconstitutional by the SC, issuances by the LEB to
be ultra vires, meaning beyond the authority of the
LEB to issue.
Katong requirement sa LEBMO 7-2016 na dapat
maka pasa ka ug PHILSAT before ka maka-enroll
in a law school declared as unconstitutional. LEB
18-2018, kato prescribe the passing of the
PHILSAT as a prerequisite for admission to law
schools. In other words, wala nay PHILSAT karon.
Also, katong gi-discuss nato ganiha katong
requirement sa LEB na dapat naay master's degree
ang ilang mga professors. It also violates the
institutional academic freedom on who may teach.
It is not the LEB that determines who may teach or
it can impose that requirement but because it is
empowered to do so under the law but it must be
reasonable.
Balik the sa concept of academic freedom, enjoyed
7
by the institutions of higher learning that's in the
constitution. So stated as narrow aspect, which is
the discussion on the academic freedom of the
professor to investigate, pursue, discuss academic
freedom of students, mao ning case na explicit ang
recognition sa SC na naay academic freedom ang
students enjoy in school the guarantees of the bill
of rights. So read the case, naay mga jurisprudence
na nag set ug example kung unsa ang right sa
students, academic freedom sa student in the
school.
And also, naay academic freedom ang faculty, ang
students, and ofcourse the institutions of higher
learning mo na tong gina balik balik ganiha kaotng
upat ka freedoms. Here, academic freedom in the
first place is not absolute, even if naay upat kabuok
na rights pwede ni siya mainterfere sa state in its
exercise of reasonable supervision and regulation.
So meaning, kung unreasonable ang imong gina
impose diha so dili na siya, so that is already
beyond what the state can do. Academic freedom is
not absolute, the state can regulate it but the
regulation must be reasonable.
Now here that's what the LEB did, nag issue sila ug
issuance para mag impose ug PHILSAT as a
minimum requirement for admission to law schools.
However, ana ang SC, state supervision and
regulation is limited. The power to supervise and
regulate it should not limit the academic freedom of
institutions of higher learning, because this schools
are not mere walls within which to teach, it is a
place for research, experiment, critical thinking and
exchanges are secured. Now, in the law school we
can see that, kani n a mga activities. Any form of
state control, even at its most benign cannot
therefore derogate this academic freedom
guaranteed to higher educational institutions.
Bantog ginahatagan ang mga school ug freedom,
because so that research, experiment, critical
thinking and exchanges will flourish. So as much as
possible, if the state will exercise its power to
regulate and supervise these schools, dapat dili
siya mu infringe on that very basic freedom;
meaning the regulation must be reasonable.
So katong gi.declare sa court as unconstitutional
katong cut-off na 55% plus kaotng requirement na
dapat makuha nimo na score. Pag makuha na nimo
na diha pa ka pwede mu.enroll sa law school, dili
pa gyud sure nga pag enroll nimo sa law school
makuha ka, so doble doble na ang requirements na
gina impose sa student. In mandating that these
applicants na naka score ug 55% shall be admitted
to study, this the LEB through the PHILSAT
usurped the right and duty of the law school itself to
determine what the criteria for the admission of the
students. This issuance by the LEB mandates law
schools to absolutely reject students will a grade
lower than that prescribed, so dili na ma exercise
karon sa law school or sa institution of higher
learning ang iyahang right or freedom to choose
kung kinsa pwede ma admit, because kani naa may
requirement ang LEB through the PHILSAT na dili
nimo ni siya pwede i admit because wala ni siya
kapasa sa PHILSAT.
Law schools are left absolutely no discretion to
choose its students at the first instance and in
accordance with its policies they are dictated to
surrender that discretion in favor of the state
determined pool of applicants under the pain of
administrative sanctions. Pag di ka mufollow aning
LEB issuance naay mga consequences. So, the
school is forced to comply, mandating this law
schools to reject these applicants, katong mga na
bagsak sa PHILSAT, transfers complete control of
admission from the law school to the LEB.. And
ofcourse, this violates the freedom of the institution
of higher learning to determine who may be
admitted to study.
But is it not, katong gi argue ni SolGen, it is not the
PHILSAT is similar to the NMAT and the LSAT,
mao ra man pud ning ginatake sa mga doctor ug
ubang mga law schools naga impose man pud sila
ug mga entrance exams. Ana ang SC, ang NMAT
is not like PHILSAT, na pag mabagsak ka dili na
gyud ka kasulod. The NMAT score is not the sole
determining factor on whether the examinee may
be admitted to medical school. It is one of the basis.
Ang PHILSAT man gyud if dili ka kapasa dili gyud
ka ka enroll sa law school.
8
 Medical Schools enjoyed the discretion to
determine how much weight should be assigned to
NMAT. What about the LSAT of the other law
schools? Also the same, it is just one of the several
criteria for the evaluation of law school admission.
One of the methods that law schools use to
differentiate applicants for law school. And
ofcourse, the main difference of the LSAT and
PHILSAT, is that the school itself is the one who is
imposing the LSAT not the LEB. In contrast, the
PHILSAT score determines if the applicant can be
admitted ot law school or not. It employs a
totalitarian scheme in terms of student admission.

Now balik ta sa atong gimention ganina, that this

academic freedom is not absolute. Administering as
an aptitude test, it is reasonably related to the
interest of the state to improve the legal education.
However, it should not be exclusionary or restrictive
or qualifying as to encroach upon academic
freedom. Basically the Court is saying that, it should
not be an imposition that is mandatory.

*Atty. Garcia gives a mini-recap on Pimentel v. LEB*

PIMENTEL v. LEB
GR No. 230642 Sept. 10, 2019
Atty. Garcia: There is a concept in Pimentel v. LEB
that I want to emphasize again. The PhilSAT itself
as an aptitude test, is VALID. It can be imposed by
the LEB, it is reasonably related to the State’s
interest in *inaudible* legal education. What was
declared by the court here as unconstitutional is the
requirement by LEBMO No. 7-2016 that the
PhilSAT be a mandatory prerequisite before you
are admitted to any law school. LEB may conduct
PhilSAT but they cannot impose to any school to
make it a requirement before a student is admitted.
What was declared as unconstitutional by the SC
was the part where LEB requires students to pass
PhilSAT before law schools can admit them. Again,
the PhilSAT, in itself, as an aptitude test is valid.

9
 I. THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
A. CONSTITUTION: Definition, nature and
concepts
POLITICAL LAW
What is POLITICS?
It is the “science of government”, from politic(adj,),
modeled on Aristotle’s ta politika “affairs of state”, the
name of his book on governing and governments,
which was in English mid-15c as “Pollettiques”.
POLITICAL LAW - A branch of public law which
deals with the organization and operation of the
governmental organs of the State, and defines the
relations of the state with the inhabitants of its
territory. It embraces constitutional law, law of
public corporations, administrative law including the
law on public officers, and elections. (Macariola v.
Asuncion, 1982)
What are the divisions of Political Law in the
Philippines?
1. Constitutional Law
2. Administrative Law
3. Law on Municipal Corporations
4. Law of Public Officers
5. Elections Law
What is so special about Political Law?
By well settled public law, upon the cession of
territory by one nation to another (So meaning, gi
conquer ta, naay revolution, naay nag sakop sa
atoa), either following a conquest or otherwise, those
laws which are political in their nature and pertain
to the prerogatives of the former government
immediately cease upon the transfer of
sovereignty (there is no need for a repealing law.
Automatic ang ilahang pag cease if they are political
in character). ( Macariola v. Asuncion, 1982)
So kato, mawala ang atong Constitution, mawala ang
atong Admin Law, kaning mga enumeration sa
Political law if naay cession of territory by one nation
to another. Kung magka revolution, etc. On the other
hand, ang opposite sa Political law is Municipal law.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POLITICAL LAW AND
MUNICIPAL LAW
MUNICIPAL LAWS (national, domestic, or
international law of the state) of the newly acquired
territory not in conflict with the laws of the new
sovereign continue in force without the express
assent or affirmative act of the conqueror.
POLITICAL LAWS do not. (Macariola vs.
Asuncion,1982)
Unsay example aning municipal laws? PENAL
CODE, CIVIL CODE, kani sila, di ni sila ma
automatically abrogated by the cession of our
territory to another state.
Political laws of the prior sovereignty as are not in
conflict with the constitution or institutions of the new
sovereign, may be continued in force if the
conqueror shall so declare by affirmative act of
the commander-in-chief during war, or by Congress
in time of peace. (Macariola vs. Asuncion,1982)
So naa pay himuon ang conqueror para ma carry
over ang political law. Ang rule is automatically
mawala siya. but if the new sovereign says sige,
padayon nato ni, so padayun sila. Municipal laws on
the other hand, no need for that. They continue in
force.
Part of Political Law is Constitutional Law.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - it is the branch of the
public law of the state which treats of the
organization and framework of government, the
organs and powers of sovereignty, the
distribution of political and governmental
authorities and functions, the fundamental
principles which are to regulate the relations of the
government and subject, and which prescribes
generally the plan and method according to which
the public affairs of the state are to be
administered.
10
CONSTITUTION - is a system of fundamental laws
for the governance and administration of a nation. It
is supreme, imperious, absolute, and unalterable
except by the authority from which it emanates. It is
the fundamental and paramount law of the nation. It
prescribes the permanent framework of a system of
government, assigns to the different departments
their respective powers and duties, and establishes
certain fixed principles on which government is
founded.
* except from authority which it emanates - meaning
pwede siya ma change if so done by the body that
adapted it.
* fundamental and paramount law of the nation -
meaning, dili nimo ni pwede supakon. Laws cannot
go beyond the Constitution because it is the most
basic, most foundation. Imagine if wala tay
constitution, wala tay guide kung unsa atong
government agencies, kung unsa ang minimum
standars, tung bill of rights, maglibog ta kung asa
nato pang kuhaon ning mga balaura to justify the
actions of the government or to defend ourselves
from the abuses of the government. Gi codify siya
into this instrument that should be observed by
everyone.
It is a supreme law to which all other laws must
conform and in accordance with which all private
rights must be determined and all public
authority administered. This is the doctrine of
constitutional supremacy , if a law or contract
violates any norm of the constitution, that law or
contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by
the executive branch, or entered into by private
persons for private purposes, is null and void and
without any force and effect. it will be declared
unconstitutional. ( Manila Prince Hotel vs.
GSIS,1997)
In Chavez vs JBC, it evinces or shows, the
Constitution shows the direct action of the Filipino
people by which the fundamental powers of the
government are established, the limited and defined
and by which those powers are distributed among the
several departments for their safe and useful
exercise for the benefit of the body politic.
Ngano naay limited sir na dapat ang constitution is
supposed to be supreme, etc.?
The Constitution also limits the powers of the
government. Why? because the State is so powerful.
If it has no limitations it can oppress the population of
the citizens. That is why naa tay provisions in the
Constitution, Article III which we call The Bill of
Rights. Naa dira ang minimum rights that we enjoy
and cannot be infringed upon by the State. The
Constitution sets the framework of the government,
principles, it also lays down our basic Constitutional
rights which are limitations to State power.
GENUINO v. DE LIMA
GR No. 197930 April 17, 2018
Facts: GMA had several cases pending before the
DOJ. She also had several criminal cases on
preliminary investigation. She wanted to leave the
country but a hold-departure order was issued
against her by the DOJ. The basis of DOJ was
Circular No. 41 series of 2010. GMA challenged the
validity of the hold-departure orders claiming that
DOJ doesn’t have the power to issue such under
any law.
Issue: WON Circular No. 41 series of 2010 is
unconstitutional on the ground that it infringes the
constitutional right to travel.
Ruling: Yes. Circular No. 41 series of 2010 is
unconstitutional. The Constitution is inviolable and
supreme of all laws. The SC emphasized that the
Constitution is the fundamental, paramount, and
supreme law of the nation; it is deemed written in
every statute and contract. It contains the
compendium of the guaranteed rights of individuals,
as well as the powers granted to and restrictions
imposed on government officials and
instrumentalities. It is that lone unifying code, an
inviolable authority that demands utmost respect and
obedience. Even Executive Departments cannot
violate the Constitution. If a law violates the
Constitution, such law is declared null and void and
will have no effect. What was violated in this case is
11
 the Constitutional right to travel. The right to travel is
part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be
deprived without due process of law. It is part and
parcel of the guarantee of freedom of movement that
the Constitution affords its citizen. Pertinently,
Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides:
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of
changing the same within the limits prescribed
by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the
right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety
or public health, as maybe provided by law.
There was no law enacted that allowed to limit or
restrict the right to travel on the grounds of having
a pending case in the DOJ. Circular No. 41 is not a
law, it is merely an issuance of an administrative
body.
Classification of a Constitution
1. FORM
a. Written – one where its provisions
have been reduced into writing
embodied in an instrument or set of
instruments.
b. Unwritten – one that has not been
committed into writing at any specific
time, but it is an accumulated product
of gradual political and legal
development. It’s written but it is not
integrated into a single concrete form
but scattered to various sources. (ex.
British Constitution)
2. ADAPTATION
a. Cumulative - based on the collection
of established customs, traditions, and
etc.
b. Conventional – based from the
process of debate and deliberation.
3. AMENDMENT
a. Rigid – one that may not be amended
except through a special process
through a different body which is more
involved than the method of changing
ordinary laws. There is a procedure
specified by the instrument unlike
passage of other legislations.
b. Flexible – may be changed in the
same manner and through the same
body that enacts ordinary legislation.
The Philippine Constitution is WRITTEN,
CONVENTIONAL, and RIGID.
B. PARTS
Parts of a Good Constitution
1. Constitution of Liberty – contains the
fundamental rights of the people (Art. III The
Bill of Rights.)
2. Constitution of Government – establishes
the structure of the government, its branches
and operation.
3. Constitution of Sovereignty – provides that
the constitution may be changed, provisions
that allow for amendment.
History of the 1987 Constitution
Prior to 1987, the Philippines was governed
by Ferdinand Marcos, a dictator. Citizens were no
longer happy and so the people revolted against the
government (EDSA Revolution or People Power I)
from February 22-25, 1986.
At the peak of the revolution, Cory Aquino,
who succeeded Marcos, signed Proclamation No. 1
“Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them. On the
basis of the people’s mandate clearly manifested last
February 7, I and Salvador H. Laurel are taking
power in the name and by the will of the Filipino
people as President and Vice President,
respectively.”
12
Adoption and Effectivity of the Present
Constitution
They promulgated a new constitution and if you read
proclamation number three, the new government was
installed through the direct exercise of the power of
the Filipino people and it was actually done in
defiance to the provisions of the 1973 Constitution,
as amended.  Meaning there is a recognition that the
newly instituted government was instituted in
violation of the 1973 constitution. So this new
government no longer followed the 1973 constitution
because the people themselves, where sovereignty
resides, have spoken, have acted in the same
proclamation, the direct mandate of the people, as
manifested by the extraordinary action they must
complete the organization of the new government.
It will be subject to a plebiscite for the approval of the
people.  This proclamation announced the
promulgation of a freedom constitution pending the
granting and adjudication of a new constitution. It
abrogated the legislative provisions of the 1973
constitution and modify the provisions regarding the
executive department and it totally reorganized the
government. This was a mere proclamation of the
president of the Philippines because we sanctioned
that through a revolution.  legislative and executive departments are to be
Distinction between a de facto and de jure
government:
A DE JURE GOVERNMENT is a legal and legitimate
government of a state and is so recognized by other
states. In the context of an uprising, a de jure
government is a government that has the right to
title but no power of control because the control has
been withdrawn from it.
A DE FACTO GOVERNMENT that actually exercises
the power of control but has no legal (inaudible) this
was in an assigned case, de facto proper.
Government takes possession, controls, or usurps,
by force or by the voice of the majority, the rightful
legal government
Atty. Gil: “De facto government na independent
government, establishment of an independent
government by the inhabitants who rise in
insurrection.
Last, a government of paramount force that is
established and maintained by military forces who
invade and occupy a territory of the enemy and of
course of war. So those are de facto government”
Q: Valid ba ang acts of a de facto government?
A: Supreme Court held that all the proceedings of the
judicial, legislative and executive departments of a de
facto government are good and valid as in the case
of Co Kim Chan vs Tan Keh And Judge Quizon.
LAWYERS VS PRESIDENT AQUINO
May 22, 1986
It is claimed that her government is illegal because
it was not established pursuant to the 1973
constitution.
”Obvious man diba? Wala sila nagfollow sa
provision of the election of the new president, on
the adoption of a new constitution, as to how the
composed.”
So is that a legitimate government? 
Supreme Court said that this question on the
legitimacy is not a justiciable matter. What the
supreme court is saying is we cannot rule on this,
this is not something that the supreme court can
decide. This matter belongs to the realm of politics,
where only the people of the Philippines are the
judge. So ang mga tao ang magdecide and dili
kami. And indeed, the people have made their
judgment, they have accepted the government of
President Aquino, which is in effective control of the
entire country. So that it is not a mere de facto
government, but it is in fact a de jure government.
LETTER OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE PUNO
13
 210 SCRA 588 (1992) was met by little resistance, was allowed,
sanctioned by the people because the people
Very interesting discussion because it arose from a
wanted that change in defiance of the constitution.
simple promotion issue. Former Chief Justice Puno
In the first place, the sovereignty, the democratic
was a former member of the CA before, so Sol
institution, the power, resides in the people.
Gen, then CA. People Power Revolution happened
before he went back to CA.
The revolution is to overthrow the government and
install a new one and that’s the voice of the people,
In the draft of appointees, his seniority was rank 11,
it’s the exercise of the power of the people. And
so the lower your number, you are more senior,
because of that, all institutions prior to the
however when he was appointed by the president,
revolution were abolished. The CA or IAC prior to
he saw his ranking become 23. He questioned the
EO 33 were phased out as part of the legal system
validity of that. Nganong nachange akong ranking
and abolished by the revolution. The CA now
na dugay naman ko sa CA? If we follow the time,
established under EO 33 is an entirely new court
dugay na ko nagtrabaho diri, dugay na ko nagka
with no relation to earlier appointments of the
tenure diri. So that was the issue of his seniority.
abolished courts. In other words, the seniority of
Justice Puno is now erased because it is a totally
The Supreme Court’s discussion reached: What
new court. The reference to precedence in ranking
is a revolution?
refers to prospective situations as distinguished
from retroactive ones. 
Revolution-Complete overthrow of the established
government in any country or state by those
previously subject of it. A sudden, radical,
fundamental change in the government of a political REPUBLIC V SANDIGANBAYAN
system usually effected with violence or at least G.R. 104768 (2003)
acts of violence.

What is the effect?

It abolishes, alters and reforms the existing form of

government without regard to the existing
constitution. This is a revolution, it is the inherent
right of the people to passed out their rulers,
change our policy, effect radical reforms in their
existent force or general uprising when the legal
and constitutional methods of making change have
become inadequate or so obstructed as to become
unavailable.

Because of the Edsa Revolution, was the

existing legal order overthrown by the Aquino
government?

Yes, her rise to the presidency was not due to

constitutional processes, it was achieved in
violation of the provisions of the 1973 constitution.
However, the organization of government, which

14
Investigations against the cronies of Marcos, so
there is an investigation against one crony for
several illegal acts. So, a case was filed in court
and the court issued a search warrant, the search
warrant for illegal possession of firearms. In the
search, the police found the items. However, they
included in their search cash, dollars, jewelry, land
titles, according to them, gamiton pud daw nila to
sa ilang kaso for illl-gotten wealth. So kaning balay
na ni, balay ni siya sa kabit ni crony, so si kabit
maapil siya sa kaso kay sa balay niya nakuha. The
case went to court, the kabit challenged the
admissibility of those evidences because the search
warrant that was shown to her was only for illegal
possession of firearms, not for the other evidence.
The Sandiganbayan excluded the evidence.
The Republic raised a novel argument, stating that
yes, the kabit was correct but during the time that
they enforced the warrant on March 3, 1986, there
was no constitution. So, your right where you
anchor the exclusion of evidence, your right in the
Bill of Rights, against illegal searches, at that time
there was no Bill of Rights. The Provisional
Constitution began on March 25, 1986.
Until the adoption of the provisional
constitution, what governed?
There was no constitution that time, so you do not
have any constitutional rights. Therefore, the court
cannot exclude these evidences for there is no
basis as there is no right.
Was the Revolutionary Government bound by
the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution after
the takeover of power? Feb 26- March 24?
The Court held that there was no constitution at that
time. However, we cannot say na walang right. The
protection afforded to individuals during that time
was not anchored on the 1973 Constitution but on
our international covenants and declarations to
which the Philippines is a signatory to. During the
indirect period, the directives, and orders of the
Revolutionary Government (RG), were the supreme
law because there was no Constitution. Limited the
extent and scope of the directives and orders, with
the abrogation of the 1973 Constitution, there was
no municipal law higher than the directives and
orders of the Revolutionary Government. During
this period, a person could not invoke any
exclusionary right under the bill of rights because
there was no Constitution or Bill of Rights during
that period. But nevertheless, the Filipino people
continued to enjoy under the international
covenants, civil and political rights and UDHD
(Universal Declaration of Human Rights), the same
rights found under the Bill of Rights of the
Constitution. So, the Revolutionary Government
had to comply with and observe.  The RG assumed
the state's responsibility and compliance, with good
faith, the covenants of the Philippines. This is where
the court anchored their decision to exclude the
evidence. We had rights there against
unreasonable searches and seizures and because
of that the government had to comply with that. 
Duty to ensure, that’s in the covenant, that no one
will be subject to arbitrary searches. 
ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVITY OF THE PRESENT
CONSTITUTION
● The plebiscite for its ratification was held on
February 2, 1987
●
● Thereafter, Proclamation No. 58 was issued
on February 11, 1987
PROCLAIMING THE RATIFICATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES ADOPTED BY THE
CONSITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986,
INCLUDING THE ORDINANCE APPENDED
THERETO
Q: When did the 1987 Constitution become
effective? Was it February 2 katong plebiscite or
was it on February 11 na giproclaim ni President na
iratify and approve sa mga tao ang 1987
constitution?
15
WHEN DID THE 1987 CONSTITUTION TAKE
EFFECT?
February 2, 1987, the date when the 1987
Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite (De Leon v
Esguerra, 1987).
Take not that under the 1987 Constitution, Article
VIII, Section 27 :
This Constitution shall take effect immediately
upon its ratification by a majority of the
votes cast in a plebiscite held for the
purpose and shall supersede all previous
Constitutions
It’s the act of ratification that makes a constitution
effective.
Q: What about the February 11 Proclamation?
A: The canvass thereafter of the votes is merely the
mathematical confirmation of what was done during
the date of the plebiscite and the proclamation of the
President (on February 11, 1987) is merely the
official confirmatory declaration of an act which was
actually done by the Filipino people in adopting the
Constitution when they cast their votes on the date of
the plebiscite
WHEN DO LAWS TAKE EFFECT?
The Civil Code, Article 2, as amended provides:
Laws shall take effect after 15 days following
the completion of their publication either in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines, unless it is
otherwise provided.
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA (1985)
Publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in
those cases where the legislation itself does not
provide for its effectivity date, for then the date of
publication is material for determining its date of
effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its
publication, but not when the law itself provides for
the date when it goes into effect. This is a
clarification of the 1985 ruling. A law may provide
for its immediate effectivity but only until it has been
published.
The clause “unless it is otherwise provided”
refers to the date of effectivity and not the
requirement of publication itself, which cannot, in
any event, be omitted. This clause does not mean
that the legislature may make the law effective
immediately upon approval, or on any other date,
without its previous publication.
Q: Why is it that there should be publication?
A: Because this is consistent with the requirement
of due process. How can you be bound by a law
that you do not know?
Publication is indispensable in every case, but the
legislature may in its discretion provide that the
usual 15 day period shall be shortened or extended
Lack of Publication would offend due process
insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the
laws that are supposed to govern them.
Atty Gil: Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith by supposing that the people
are informed of the laws that they are supposed to
obey. How can you be informed of the law that has
not been published? So it has to be published in
every case, even if the law provides for its
immediate effectivity. It can not be effective if it has
not been published. Basic difference between the
effectivity of constitution and laws; the
constitution needs a plebiscite (vote of the
people, you approved this constitution, you adapt
it), on the other hand laws would take effect after
its publication.
If legislature could validly provide that a law be
16
 effective immediately upon its approval
notwithstanding the lack of publication, it is likely
that persons not aware of it would be prejudiced as
a result and they would be so not because of a
failure to comply with but simply because they did
not know of its existence.
Q: Where do you publish?
A: Publication need not be made in the Official
Gazette, considering its erratic releases and limited
readership.
Undoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation
could better perform the function of communicating,
the laws to the people as such periodicals are more
easily available, have a wider readership, and
come out regularly.
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 200 June 18, 1987
(PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS
EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A
NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN
THE PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR
THEIR EFFECTIVITY)
C. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS
● ARTICLE XVII (Amendments or Revisions)
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of,
this Constitution may be proposed by:
1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths
of all its Members; or (CONSTITUENT
ASSEMBLY)
2. A constitutional convention.
(CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION)
SECTION 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-
thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional
convention, or by a majority vote of all its
members, submit to the electorate the question of
calling such a convention.
SECTION 2. Amendments to this constitution may
likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per
centum of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum of the registered voters
therein.
Limitations :
No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five years following the ratification
of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five
years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for
the implementation of the exercise of this right.
(Kailangan pa ug balaud before we can exercise
this power to initiate amendments of the
constitution through its people’s initiative)

Atty Gil: Look at the wording of Section 1,

amendment or revision may be proposed either
CON-ASS or CON-CON. However, if it is the
people’s initiative, ang pwede lang jud nila
mapropose is an amendment to the constitution, dili
pwede revisions.

Second Step of Ratification (Section 4); First step is

Proposal

17
 SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty
days nor later than ninety days after the approval
of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be
valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than
sixty days nor later than ninety days after the
certification by the Commission on Elections of
the sufficiency of the petition.
(Comelec ang mag-asikaso sa petition ng initiative
ng people; they will look into if compliant ba siya sa
requirement, then ang Comelec ang maghimo sa
plebiscite)
SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC (1997)
Delfin Petition, filed before the COMELEC, alleged
that the provisions sought to be amended are
Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of the Article
VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution.
It was “Petition to Amend the constitution, to Lift
Term Limits of Executive Officials, by People’s
Initiative.”
According to Delfin, the said Petition for Initiative will
first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed
by at least 12% of the total number of registered
voters in the country it will be formally filed with the
COMELEC.
Santiago, et. al argued that the constitutional
provision in people’s initiative to amend the
Constitution can only be implemented by law to be
passed by Congress. No such law has been passed.
R.A. No. 6735 does not provide for the amendment
of the Constitution by way of a people’s initiative.
Can the 1987 Constitution be amended by way of
a people’s initiative under R.A. No. 6735?
No, Section 2 (Statement of Policy) of the Act does
not suggest an initiative on amendments to the
Constitution. The Act does not provide for the
contents of a petition for initiative on the
Constitution.
● No subtitle is provided for initiative on the
Constitution.
● The Act failed to provide for the details in the
implementation of an initiative on the
Constitution.
● R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or
wanting in essential terms and conditions
insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this
substantive matter are fatal and cannot be
cured by empowering the COMELEC to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may
be necessary to carry out the purposes of the
Act.
R.A. No. 6735, in all of its 23 sections, merely (a)
mentions, the word “Constitution” in Section 2; (b)
defines initiative in Section 3; (c) speaks of
“plebiscite” as the process by which the proposition in
an initiative on the Constitution may be approved or
rejected by the people; (d) reiterates the
constitutional requirement as to the number of voters
who should sign the petition, and (e) provides for the
date of effectivity of the approved proposition.
There was, therefore, an obvious downgrading of the
more important or the paramount system of initiative.
R.A. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to
the system of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution.
Under Section 2 Article XVII of the Constitution, a
petition for initiative on the Constitution must be
signed by at least 12% of the total number of
registered voters of which every legislative district is
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
18
therein. The Delfin Petition does not contain
signatures of the required number of voters. Delfin
himself admits that he has not yet gathered
signatures and that the purpose of his petition is
primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather
signatures. Without the required signatures, the
petition cannot be deemed validly initiated.
LAMBINO vs. COMELEC (2006)
The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication
of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the
following proposition in a plebiscite for the voter’s
ratification: Do you approve the amendment of
Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, changing
the form of government from the present bicameral
presidential to a unicameral- parliamentary system,
and providing Article XVIII as transitory provisions for
the orderly shift from one system to another?
Ruling:
Lambino et. al miserably failed to comply with the
basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a people’s initiative.
The framers of the Constitution intended that the
“draft of the proposed constitutional amendment”
should be “ready and shown” to the people “before”
they signed such a proposal. The framers plainly
stated that “before they sign there is already a draft
shown to them.” The framers also envisioned that the
people should sign on the proposal itself because the
proponents must prepare that proposal and pass it
around for signature.
The essence of amendments directly proposed by
the people through initiative upon a petition is that the
entire proposal on its face is petitioned by the people.
This means two essential elements must be
present.
FIRST, the people must author and thus sign the
entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign
on their behalf.
SECOND, as an initiative upon a petition, the
proposal must be embodied in a petition.
The essential elements are present ONLY IF THE
FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
IS FIRST SHOWN TO THE PEOPLE WHO
EXPRESS THEIR ASSENT BY SIGNING SUCH
COMPLETE PROPOSAL IN A PETITION. Thus, an
amendment is directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition only if the people
who sign on a petition contain the full text of the
proposed amendments.
THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS MAY BE EITHER WRITTEN ON
THE FACE OF THE PETITION, OR ATTACHED TO
IT.
Also, the Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision and
not merely an amendment.
Quantitatively, the Lambino Group’s proposed
changes overhaul 2 articles - Article VI on the
Legislature and Article VII on the Executive -
affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire
Constitution. Qualitatively, the proposed changes
alter substantially the basic plan of government, from
presidential to parliamentary, and from bicameral to a
unicameral legislature.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE AMENDING PROCESS
What is Judicial Review?
➔ This is a review by the Court.
TOLENTINO VS COMELEC
41 SCRA 702 (1967)
So you have to properly submit the people your proposed amendments or revisions. So that case talks about ConCon.
What are the facts of this case? There is this
Constitutional Convention, 1935 Constitution pa
ni sila during this time. So naghimo sila ug
convention, ConCon ilang gigamit na mode of
giving the proposals. So this is an amendment to
the Constitution. Gi-challenge karon ang validity
ani na Resolution by the Convention.
19
Kung gusto ka mag-amend ug provision sa
Constitution, you do not do it in piece meal. Di
pwede na today kani imong gusto ipa-amend;
next, ing-ani na pud. Dapat tibuok proposed
amendments or revision ipresent na nimo tanan.
Para makita karon sa mga tao na mag plebiscite
ang overall effect of the amendment. So, mao
tung challenge.
Now, ang argument karon sa- those who are
defending the validity of this resolution was that
this cannot be reviewed by the Court, so you
cannot go to Court to stop this because this is
beyond the powers of the Court to determine.
The courts cannot determine the validity or
invalidity of the acts of the convention.
The vote here is to stop the COMELEC from
undertaking this plebiscite to approve or not the
lowering of the voting age to 18. So COMELEC,
ayaw sag lihok kay naa pa ta’y issue.
Can the acts of the Constitutional Convention
be reviewed by the Supreme Court?
In Tolentino vs COMELEC, ana ang Supreme
Court, YES.
It is of the very essence of the Rule of Law that
somehow, somewhere, the power and duty to
resolve this Constitutional question must be
lodged on some authority. How? Now, ana ang
Court, within the domain of its legitimate
authority, the Convention is supreme. Ang
kaning Constitutional Convention, sa inyong
internal rules, well dili pwede makahilabot ang
Supreme Court ana, within the domain of your
legitimate authority. They are completely without
restrain and omnipotent all wise.
Once convened, this Convention became
endowed with extra ordinary powers generally
beyond the control of any department of the
existing government.
But the compass of such powers can be co-
extensive only with the purpose for which the
convention was called.
Dili pwede na absolute ang powers na i-exercise
aning Convention. If for example, they violated
the Constitution, they cannot have any effect.
They can only exercise their powers for that
purpose for which they were created. As it may
propose, you cannot have any effect as part of
the Constitution until the same are duly ratified
by the people, it necessarily follows that the acts
of convention, its officers and members are not
immune from attack on constitutional grounds.
So pwede gihapon nimo siya machallenge, in
other words.
Now for instance, Convention cannot deprive
any person of life, liberty or property because
that is prohibited under the Constitution. In other
words, naa gihapo’y limitation.
Where do you see the limitation? The
Constitution itself. And who determines the
violations of those limitations?
There must be some authority. There must be
somebody. That is the Supreme Court. So in
other words, not all questions that involve the
acts of the Convention are beyond Judicial
Review. They are subject to Judicial Review.
This Convention validly pass any resolution
providing for the taking of private property
without just compensation. All of these, in
violations of the Constitution. So dili, in other
words, pwede muviolate si Convention sa
provisions sa Constitution. If there is a violation,
there must be a body that determines if there is a
violation and that is the Supreme Court.
20
Therefore, that question on whether or not there
is a violation is a judicial matter subject to judicial
review.
Doctrine of Proper Submission
What is the Doctrine of Proper Submission? It
means all the proposed amendments to the
Constitution shall be presented to the people for
the ratification or rejection at the same time, not
piecemeal. Meaning, i-present tanan sa kung
kinsa ang mag ratify ana; properly submit it to
the people. All the amendments to be proposed
by the same Convention must be submitted to
the people in a single plebiscite.
Congress may propose amendments to the
Constitution merely because the same explicitly
grants such power. Hence, when exercising the
same, it is said that Senators and Members of the
House of Representatives act, not as members of
Congress, but as component elements of a
Constituent Assembly.
So where do they get their power? Asa man ang
limitations sa ilang powers? Of course, we base it
on the Constitution.
The issue whether a Resolution of a constituent
assembly violates the Constitution essentially
justiciable, not political, and, hence, subject to
judicial review.

Nganong isa-isahon man jud ninyo? Dapat giisa
na na siya into one plebiscite para makita kung
kinsa man ang muapprove(people), ang total
effect of the proposed amendment or revision.
In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of an
amendment to the Constitution may be validly
held, it must provide the voter not only sufficient
time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal
of the nature of the amendment per se, as well
as its relation to the other parts of the
constitution with which it has to form a
harmonious whole.
When acting as a ConAss, the members of the
Congress derive their authority from the
Constitution. It follows necessarily that they do not
have the final say on whether or not our acts are
within or beyond our constitutional limits. It is a
justiciable matter on their part and can be subject to
judicial review by the Supreme Court.
ConAss, ConCon, their acts are not beyond
Judicial Review as a rule.
JAVELLANA VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
50 SCRA 30 (1972)

Q: What about ConAss? So can a ConAs be

reviewed by the Supreme Court?
A: Yes. Pwede pud siya mareview.
This case sanctioned or allowed martial law in
the Philippines in the Marcos era. This is an
GONZALES VS COMELEC
21 SCRA 774 (1967)
interesting case because the Justice who
penned the decision was a dissenting Justice.

On March 16, 1967 Congress of the Philippines

passed Resolution No. 2, as amended, calling
for a Constitutional Convention to propose
amendments to the Philippine Constitution. The
1971 Constitutional Convention began to
perform its functions on June 1, 1971.
21

While the Convention was in session on
September 21, 1972, the President issued
Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire
Philippines under Martial Law.
On November 29, 1972, the Convention
approved its Proposed Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines. After the proposal,
the next step is ratification through a plebiscite
called for the purpose. So kato nagka Martial
Law, naapprove na ang constitution.
Nagkaplebiscite na.
On January 17, 1973, the President issued
Proclamation No. 1102, which declares that a
Citizen Assemblies referendum was conducted,
and that the result shows more than 95% of the
members of the Citizen Assemblies are in favor
of the new Constitution. A majority also
answered that there was no need for a
plebiscite.
In other words, it did not follow the requirement
of a plebiscite because the president already
created CA, and this Assem showed that 95%
are in favor. since 95% are in favor, no need na
for a plebiscite.
Hence, the President proclaimed that the
Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional
Convention had been ratified by an
overwhelming majority of all the votes cast by
the members of the Citizen Assemblies
throughout the Philippines and has thereby come
into effect.
President validated the result of the referendum
conducted on the citizen assemblies, the result
was that they approved the 1973 Constitution.
So the validity of the 1973 Constitution was
challenged by Javellana and others. They
challenged the way of adopting or “skirting” the
ratification process.
Javellana filed this case before the Supreme
Court alleging that the President had announced
the immediate implementation of the New
Constitution, thru his Cabinet, and that the latter
“are acting without, or in excess of jurisdiction in
implementing the said proposed Constitution”
upon the ground that the President, as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, is without authority to create the
Citizen Assemblies, and that the election held to
ratify the proposed Constitution was not a free
election, hence null and void.
Q: Kinsa man ang Citizen Assemblies? Is this
tantamount to a plebiscite to ratify the
constitution?
A: It was not the people themselves who
approved the 1973 Constitution, but rather the
President himself through the fiction of the
Citizen’s Assembly.
The election held to ratify the proposed
Constitution was not a free election: remember,
during this time, it was a Martial Law. Null and
void ang adoption, ang effectivity ani na
constitution because sham tanan.
Ruling:
Is this a political Question?
(Is this a question that cannot be resolved by
courts? Is this a question that only the people
can answer?)
No. Political questions are those which, under
the Constitution, are to be decided by the people
in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the Legislature or executive branch of the
government. They are concerned with issues
dependent upon the wisdom, not legality of a
22
particular measure.
Courts, as a rule, cannot resolve political
questions.
Why? Because dili ni siya question na
maresolve nila because only people can decide
these questions. Now, the Court said it's not a
PQ, because the question is whether or not the
adoption of the new constitution is compliant
with the 1935 constitution.
Basis sa court: 1935 consti and the act
complained of Tan awon niya if nag comply ba
or wala, the court can decide that.
However, when the grant of power is qualified
(accdg to the prescribed rules), conditional or
subject to limitations by the (1935) Consitution,
the issue on whether or not the prescribed
qualifications or conditions have been met or the
limitations respected, is justiciable or non-
political, the crux of the problem being one of
legality or validity of the contested act, not its
wisdom.
those of PD No. 73. Ang nilihok gyud aning
Barrio Assemblies kay ang executive
department.
What is more, they were held under the
supervision of the very officers and agencies of
the Executive Department sought to be excluded
therefrom by Art. XV of the 1935 Constitution.
Worse still, said officers and agencies of the
Executive Department, who had been publicly
urged and ostensibly promised to work for the
ratification of the proposed revised Constitution
would be favored thereby, owing to the
practically indefinite extension of their respective
terms of office in consequence of section 9 of the
Transitory Provisions, found in Art XVII of the
proposed Constitutions, without any elections
therefor.
Naay interest ang Cabinet members and
Executive department sa pag adopt ani na
consti. In other words it is not dependent on the
people.

And the procedure therein mostly followed is

Considering that Art. XV of our 1935 Constitution
such that there is no reasonable means of
prescribes the method or procedure for its
checking the accuracy of the returns filed by the
amendment, it is clear to my (writer’s) mind that
officers who conducted said plebiscites.
the question whether or not the revised
Constitution drafted by the 1971
It is thus clear that the proceedings held in such
Constitutional Convention has been ratified
Citizens’ Assemblies were fundamentally
in accordance with said Art. XV is a
irregular, in that persons lacking the
justiciable one and non-political in nature, and
qualifications prescribed in section 1 of Art. V of
that it is not only subject to judicial inquiry, but
the Constitution were allowed to vote in said
also that it is the court’s bounden duty to decide
Assemblies. Contrary to the Provis of the 1935
such question.
Constitution.
Was the 1973 Constitution validly ratified?
Have the officers and offices of the Executive
Department acquiesced in the proposed
No. The Barrio Assemblies as were held took
Constitution?
place without the intervention of the Commission
No. They are bound to obey and act in
on Elections, and without complying with the
conformity with the orders of the President,
provisions of the Election Code of 1971 or even
23
under whose “control” they are, pursuant to the
1935 Constitution. They have absolutely no other
choice, specially in view of Proclamation No.
1081 placing the Philippines under Martial Law.
Because silent lang daw uban members sa
Executive Department, meaning ningsugot daw
sila. But the SC said no.
Have the people acquiesced in the proposed
Constitution?
Q: What about the people? Wala man ta
nagrevolt, wala man ta nakigpatay, wala man ta
nag-ingay. By that inaction, have we
acqueiesced?
A: Tan awon nimo ngano nahilom ang mga tao
this time, it is because of the Martial Law. Mao
ning nihilom ang mga tao this time because of
the Martial Law.
In the words of the Chief Executive “martial law
connotes power of the gun, meant coercion by
the military, and compulsion and intimidation.”
The failure to use the gun against those who
comply with the orders of the party wielding the
weapon does not detract from the intimidation
that ML necessarily connotes.
However, what happened in this case was that
the 10 justices who voted on the issues could
not get the majority vote to rule that the 1973
constitution was invalidly ratified.
There were some justices who were against the
procedure, however they could not get the
necessary number required of them under the
constitution.
Results of the voting of the 10 justices
● Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation
No. 1102 a justiciable, or political and
therefore non-justiciable question?
Majority: Justiciable
● Has the Constitution proposed by the
1971 Con Con been ratified validly (with
substantial, if not strict compliance)
conformably to the applicable
constitutional and statutory provisions?
Majority: No
● Has the aforementioned proposed
Constitution been acquiesced in (with or
without valid ratification) by the people?
No majority vote
● Is the aforementioned proposed
Constitution in force?
Four members of the Court hold that it is
in force by virtue of the people’s
acceptance thereof; Four members of the
Court cast no vote thereon; and Two
members of the Court voted that the
Constitution proposed by the 1971 Con
Con is not in force;
With the result that there are not
enough votes to declare that the new
Constitution is not in force.
In other words, the Constitution is in force. In
the ruling of the Court, the process laid down in
the 1935 Constitution was not complied with.
The Court decided that there is no valid
ratification, and that there is no acquiescence
from the people. However, since the CA has
casted their votes, they needed the vote of the
SC to overthrow that. There were not enough
votes to declare the Const is not in force.
Q: What happens if the Congress skirts the
process? Example, if the lower house
approves...
ConCon or ConAss - Senate participation is
required:
● Con Ass - 3/4
24
 ● Con Con - 2/3
Q: What happens if the lower house makes their
own version and immediately goes to the
COMELEC and has it ratified by the people and
then the people ratify it?
Mura napud siyag mahimong issue like in this
case. What can the court do if the PP ratified it?
Final result of this case
ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of the majority of six
votes of justices, all the aforementioned cases
are hereby dismissed.
This being the vote of the majority, there is no
further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution
being considered in force and effect.
The SC during the time was complicit during the
perpetuation of the Marcos Regime.
—————
JUDICIAL ELABORATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION
● How courts interpret the issue presented
● The Court
- body that decides an act as
constitutional or not.
- ANY Court can exercise judicial
review.
Principles that guide the court’s interpretation
1. Verba legis
- Whenever possible, the words used must
be given their ordinary meaning except
when technical terms are used.
- Constitution is a document of the people,
not for lawyers. When words are clear
then you do not use external sources and
apply it.
2. Ratio legiset anima
- When there is ambiguity in a provision. It
shall be examined in the light of the
history of the times and conditions and
circumstances under which the
Constitution was framed.
3. Utmagisvaleat quam pereat
- The Constitution has to be interpreted as
a whole and not read in isolation, and in
view of the provisions.
D. SELF EXECUTING AND NON-SELF
EXECUTING PROVISIONS
● Non-self-executing provisions
○ Provisions that lay down a general
principle, such as those found in
Article II of the 1987 Constitution.
○ These provisions cannot give rise to a
cause of action in the courts; they do
not embody judicially enforceable
constitutional rights.
● Self-executing provisions
○ Provisions that are fixed by the
constitution itself by the nature and
extent of the liability and the right
conferred, so they can be determined
through examination and construction
of its terms. These are self-
enforceable rights.
○ Complete in itself, and most can be
seen in Art III – The Bill of RIghts
○ There is no language indicating that
the subject is referred to the
legislature for action.
Q: Are the provisions of the constitution presumed
to be self-executing or non-self-executing?
A: They are presumed to be self-executing.
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL VS. GSIS
267 SCRA 774 (Feb 3, 1997)
Facts:
T he Government Service Insurance System
25
(GSIS) decided to sell through public bidding
30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding
shares of the Manila Hotel (MHC).
In a close bidding, two bidders participated:
Manila Prince Hotel Corporation (MPHC), a
Filipino corporation, which offered to buy 51% of
the MHC at P41.58 per share, and Renong
Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as
its hotel operator, which bid for the same number
of shares at P44.00 per share, or P2.42 more
than the bid of petitioner.
Pending the declaration of Renong Berhard as
the winning bidder and the execution of the
contracts, the MPHC matched the bid price in a
letter to GSIS. MPHC sent a manager’s check to
the GSIS in a subsequent letter, which GSIS
refused to accept. On 17 October 1995, perhaps
apprehensive that GSIS has disregarded the
tender of the matching bid, MPHC came to the
Court on prohibition and mandamus.
Petitioner invokes Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII,
of the 1987 Constitution and submits that the
Manila Hotel has been identified with the Filipino
nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects the vibrancy of
Philippine heritage and culture.
Respondents assert that Sec. 10, second par.,
Art. XII, of the 1987 Constitution is merely a
statement of principle and policy since it is not a
self-executing provision and requires
implementing legislation(s).
Issue:
Whether the provisions of the Constitution,
particularly Article XII Section 10, are self-
executing.
Ruling:
Yes. Sec 10, Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a
self-executing provision.
A provision which lays down a general principle,
such as those found in Article II of the 1987
Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a
provision which is complete in itself and
becomes operative without the aid of
supplementary or enabling legislation, or that
which supplies sufficient rule by means of which
the right it grants may be enjoyed or protected, is
self-executing.
FILIPINO FIRST POLICY
ART XII, SECTION 10. In the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony, the State shall give
preference to qualified Filipinos. The State shall
regulate and exercise authority over foreign
investments within its national jurisdiction and in
accordance with its national goals and priorities
● The provision is self-executing.
Sec. 10, second part., Art. XII of the 1987
Constitution is a mandatory, positive command which
is complete in itself and which needs no further
guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its
enforcement. The provision does not require any
legislation to put into operation.
When our Constitution declares that a right
exists during certain circumstances, an action may
be maintained to enforce such right notwithstanding
the absence of any legislation on the subject.
Even if there is no statute especially enacted to
enforce such constitutional right, such right enforces
itself by its own inherent potency, and from which all
legislations must take their bearings.
Unless the legislative act is expressly provided that it
is necessary for the enforcement of a constitutional
mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions
of the constitutions are self-executing.
In case of doubt, the Constitution should be
26
considered self-executing rather than non-
executing.
If deemed non-executing, Congress has the freedom
to craft legislation to cater to their needs. If that is the
presumption, there would be no constitutional intent.
A contrary rule would give the legislature discretion to
determine its effectivity. These provisions would be
subordinated to the will of the lawmaking body, which
could make them meaningless by simply the refusal
to pass the needed implementing statute.
PAMATONG vs. COMELEC
427 SCRA 96 (2004)
Petitioner Pamatong has been running for president for
many years but has always been declared as a nuisance
candidate. He argues that his declaration as nuisance
candidate violates his right to “equal access to
opportunities for public service” under Section 26, Article
II of the 1987, which states:
SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee equal access
to opportunities for public service, and prohibit
political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Is he correct?
No. Because the provision is not self-executing.
Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither
bestows such right nor elevates the privilege to the
level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the
plain language of the provision which suggests such
a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.
The “equal access” provision is a subsumed part of
Article II of the Constitution, entitled “Declaration of
Principles and State Policies.” The provisions under the
Article are generally considered not self-executing.
These provisions are broad, and there is a need for
implementing regulations to make them more specific.
Like the rest of the policies enumerated in Article II, the
provisions does not contain any judicially enforceable
constitutional right, but mere specifies a guideline for
legislative or executive action. The disregard of the
provision does not give rise to any cause of action before
the courts.
COUNCIL vs SECRETARY (2018)
This case ruled on the constitutionality of
Republic Act (RA) No. 10533 (K to 12 Law), RA
No. 10157 (Kindergarten Education Act), and
related issuance of the Department of Education,
Commission on Higher Education, Department of
Labor and Employment, and Technical
Education and Skills Development Authority
implementing the K to 12 Basic Education
Program.
The K to 12 Law, K to 12 IRR, DO No. 31 and/or
the Joint Guidelines are challenged for
contravening the following provisions of the
Philippine Constitution on:
● Establishing and maintain a system of
free elementary and high school
education and making elementary
education compulsory for all children of
school age (Section 2[2], Article XIV);
● The right to accessible and quality
education at all levels and duty of the
State to make such education accessible
to all (Section 1, Article XIV);
● The primary duty of parents to rear and
prepare their children. (Section 2[2[,
Article XIV);
● The right of every to select a profession
or course of study(Section 5[3], Article
XIV);
● Patriotism and nationalism (Sections 13
and 17, Article II, Section 3[1], and [2],
Article XIV);
● The use of Filipino as medium of official
communication and a language of
instruction in the educational system
(Section 6, Article XIV); and regional
languages as auxiliary media of
instruction (Section 7, Article XIV);
● Academic Freedom (Section 5[2], Article
XIV); and
27
 ● The right of labor to full protection
(Section 18, Article II, Section 3, Article
XIII AND Section 5[4], Article XIV).
According to the Supreme Court, most of the
provisions are non-self-executing.
As defined, “a constitution provision is self-
executing if the nature and extent of the right
conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by
the constitution itself, so that they can be
determined by an examination and construction
of its terms, and there is no language indication
that the subject is referred to the legislature for
action.”
However, the Court has, in several cases, had
occasion to already declare several
Constitutional provision as not self-executory:
● Section 2[2], Article XIV; Section 1, Article
XIV; Section 5[3], Article XIV; Sections 13
and 17, Article II; Section 3[1] and [2],
Article XIV; Section 6, Article XIV; Section
7, Article XIV; Section 5[2], Article XIV;
Section 18, Article II; Section 3, Article
XIII, Section 5[4], Article XIV.
The very terms of these provisions show that
they are not judicially enforceable constitutional
rights but merely guidelines for legislation. And
the failure of the legislature to pursue the policies
embodied therein does not give rise to a cause
of action in the courts.
To declare that the constitutional provisions
are enough to guarantee the full exercise of
the rights embodies therein, and realization
of ideals therein expressed, would be
impractical, if not unrealistic. The espousal of
such view presents the dangerous tendency
of being overboard and exaggerated.
For example: The guarantees of “full protection
to labor” and “security of tenure” are facially
unqualified, and the broadest interpretation
possible suggests a blanked shield in favor of
labor against any form of removal regardless of
circumstances. This interpretation implies an
unimpeachable right to continued employment
but still hardly within the contemplation of the
framers.
Therefore: Subsequent legislation is still needed
to define the parameters of these guaranteed
rights to ensure the protection and promotion,
not only the rights of the labor sector, but of the
employers as well.
The law cannot be challenged or declared
unconstitutional as soon as the issuances on the
basis of those non self-executing provisions.
Given the foregoing, petitioners cannot claim that
the K to 12 Law and/or any of its related
issuances contravene or violate any of their
rights under the foregoing constitutional
provisions because there provisions simply state
a policy that may be “used by the judiciary as
aids or as guides in the exercise of its power of
judicial review, and by the legislature in its
enactment of laws.” They do not embody
judicially enforceable constitutional rights.
The Kindergarten Education Act, and the K to 12
law and its related issuances cannot be nullified
based solely on bare allegations that they violate
general provisions of the Constitutions which are
mere directives addressed to the executive and
legislative departments.
If these directive are unheeded, the remedy does
not lie with the courts, but with the power of the
electorate in casting their votes.
Note: The decision if a provision is self-
executing or not self-executing is based on
jurisprudence. It is decided by the Supreme
Court. In order to be apprised of the provision,
we have to be guided by the decisions of the
28
Supreme Court. The constitution itself does not
contain the explicit statement.
FIRST QUIZ RECAP:
1. The State cannot limit the right of colleges and
universities to select and determine the employment
status of its faculty members, is this true or false?
● FALSE, because the State can limit the right
of colleges and universities to select and
determine. This is the case of Son vs. UST,
where the CHED imposed a minimum
qualification, ‘tong master’s degree and then
the schools covered by the CHED were
supposed to follow that. That can be done by
the State because this is part of State
regulation of education. So this is FALSE
because the State CAN limit the right.
2. Section 7 C and E of RA 7662 giving the authority
to the LEB to set the qualifications of law school is
not unconstitutional.
● TRUE. These provisions are not
unconstitutional. The Court has upheld its
validity. It was the way that the LEB enforced
this power through issuances that the Court
declared it to unconstitutional. Kadtong mga
issuances na related to the exercise of its
power under these provisions. These
provisions are okay according to the Court.
This is part of State regulation, na to improve
the quality of legal education in the country,
so valid ni siya na provisions.
3. The State cannot impose regulations on
academic institutions since any form of State control,
even at its most benign cannot diminish the
academic freedom of institutions of higher learning.
● FALSE. Now what makes this statement
false? The first phrase, the state cannot
impose regulations. The State CAN impose
regulations but limited. The second part:
"Any form of State control...", that is true. So
since gi-combine nato ang duha ka
statement, one of them is false, so that makes
the entire statement false. So this is in the
case of Pimentel vs. LEB.
4. The PHILSAT, as an aptitude test, encroaches
upon a law school's academic freedom to determine
who may be admitted to study.
● FALSE. The State CAN impose, the LEB
CAN impose PhilSat as an aptitude test,
pwede siya, okay siya. Mao 'tong atong gi-
emphasize last meeting. What was the
declared by the Court as unconstitutional
was that paragraph in the LEB issuance,
making the PhilSat as a mandatory
requirement before you can be admitted to
any law school. As a test, it is okay, but
making it a mandatory requirement before
admission, that is what is unconstitutional, so
this is true, this test is okay, making it
mandatory, however, is not okay.
5. The PhilSat violates the citizens' right to select a
professional course of study.
● NO. In the same case, the Court emphasized
that the right to select a professional
course of study is subject to regulation,
subject to the standards of the school,
among other things. So pwede ni siya
gamiton by the school, kaning PhilSat, as one
of the standards or one of the requirements
before a student can enter the school.
6. A State-imposed aptitude test that qualifies and
restricts admission to a law school is not
unconstitutional.
● FALSE. Mao na ni ang ingon sa Court last
time na what made the PhilSat
unconstitutional was not the test per se, but
rather the requirement of making it a
qualification and a restriction for admission to
any law school. This is unconstitutional.
7. A law that prohibits judges from having direct
intervention in commercial companies within the
districts where they exercise their powers is
automatically abrogated upon a change of
sovereignty.
● TRUE. This is the case involving distinction
between political laws and municipal laws.
This is a form of a political law because it
regulates the relationship of the judge vis-a-
29
 vis running the government, which includes
the judges. So this prohibition is in the form of
a political law that is changed automatically
upon, abrogated automatically upon the
change of sovereignty in a State. 

8. Municipal laws of the prior sovereignty that are not

in conflict with the constitution, blah blah blah, may
continue to be enforced if the conquerors also
declare by affirmative act.
● FALSE. There is no need for the conqueror to
make an affirmative act before municipal laws
are retained. Ang mga political laws ang
kailangan ug positive act from the
conqueror kay automatically abrogated
man sila. Municipal laws that are not
inconsistent, they are retained, so no need of
a positive act from the conqueror.

9. The essential freedoms subsumed in the

academe, academic freedom of faculty members
encompass the following... So what makes this
statement false? Very obvious. This is not the
academic freedom of faculty members but of the
institutions of higher learning.

10. Laws that deal with the organization and

operation of the State's government immediately
cease upon the transfer of sovereignty.
● Yes, because these are considered political
laws. They are automatically abrogated upon
the transfer or change of sovereignty.

30
 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Q: Unsa man ning judicial review? What is it?
This power, refers to both the authority and duty of
the court. Dili pwede na the court will just neglect this
power because it is duty-bound to resolve issues that
present justiciable questions.
It is the duty and authority of the court to determine
whether a branch or instrumentality of government,
which includes the legislative and the executive, has
acted beyond the scope of their constitutional
powers. In other words, courts can declare their acts
as unconstitutional or not unconstitutional.
Q: Unsa'y difference sa constitutional and not
unconstitutional?
A: So if you are asked, is this law or ordinance
unconstitutional, we would be discussing in the future
this presumption of constitutionality, so if your answer
is that it is constitutional, do not say that it is
constitutional.
You write there that it is NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
because it is presumed to be constitutional. Kay
mu-ingon man gud ka ug constitutional, murag gi-
presume nimo na either way siya e, pwede siya
maging constitutional or not unconstitutional. The
presumption on that is it's not unconstitutional. So
you say, it is not unconstitutional.
Judicial Review, defined.
● The power of the court to determine if
these acts of these government agencies,
instrumentality of government, have they
gone beyond the scope of their
constitutional powers.
● It includes the power to resolve cases in
which the constitutionality or validity,(so dili ni
siya exclusive enumeration because it includes the
of every treaty, the
power to resolve these cases)
executive agreement, law, P.D., presidential
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation. Pwede ni siya maging subject sa
judicial review.
Q: What is the basis?
A: This power is inherent in our courts because it
is given to it by the Constitution. It is, as a rule,
courts consider the other branches as co-equals.
Judiciary recognizes this doctrine of separation of
powers, meaning kabalo ang court sa iyang duty and
limitations. Kabalo pud siya kung unsa'y limitation sa
executive ug sa legislative. So the presumption there,
is that these agencies, these government bodies are
doing their job. So dili pwede ang court, mukalit lang
ug intrude sa act sa executive, na "ah,
unconstitutional na imong gihimo," unless there is a
proper venue for it.
There are requisites because the Court respects
the separation of their powers. Dili pwede mu-
intrude siya, and vice versa. The executive cannot
intrude upon the judiciary, the legislative also cannot
intrude, so naay separation. This is why courts must
exercise proper restraint. Not all the time na mag-file
ka ug case against a law or ordinance or act of the
government, i-declare dayon na sa court as
unconstitutional, because it will exercise such
restraint because it respects the co-equal branches
of government.
This doctrine of separation of powers imposed on
the court proper restraint, borne of the nature of their
functions and of their respect for the other branches
of government. In striking down these acts, the policy
is a harmonious blend of courtesy and caution.
However, there are times na kailangan mu-act ang
court, to rule on this issue, and if it rules so, it does
so consistent with the provisions of the Constitution.
In times of social disquietude or political instability,
the great landmarks of the constitution are
sometimes forgotten or marred, if not entirely
obliterated.
In order to address this, the Constitution impresses
upon the Court to respect the acts of the co-equal
31
branches of government but at the same time, it
allows these branches to cross this line of
separation, but only at very limited and specific
point, and that is to determine whether their acts
are unconstitutional.
Q: Who else can interpret the provisions of the
constitutions but the courts?
A: Sila lang ang maka-declare sa acts aning other
branches of government as unconstitutional. Dili
pwede ang Congress mag-ingon na unconstitutional
ning ginahimo sa executive or sa judiciary. This is
the power of the courts given to it by the
Constitution.
If there's an allegation that there's a violation of the
constitution and we've settled last meeting that the
Supreme Court, or courts for that matter, have that
power.
Q: Who can exercise the power?
A: The Constitution explicitly vests in the Supreme
Court the power of judicial review. However, lower
courts can exercise this power.  There must be contriety of legal rights that can be
CONDITIONS FOR THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW
Requisites of Judicial Review (Memorize)
● Actual case, locus standi, earliest opportunity,
and lis mota.
1. There must be an actual case or controversy
2. The person challenging must have locus
standi or legal standing
3. The question of constitutionality must be
raised at the earliest opportunity
4. The issue of constitutionality must be the
very lis mota of the case.
1. Actual Case or Controversy
- Judicial power only operates when there is an
actual case or controversy.
Kung gusto ka mu-adto ka sa court kay gusto ka
mangayo ug opinion, tama ba ni akong ginahimo
court? You cannot do that. Why? 
● Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution
Article VIII, Section 1. Judicial power includes the
duty of courts to settle actual controversies
involving rights that are legally demandable and
enforceable.
●
So kung wala kay actual case or controversy, you
cannot invoke judicial power or judicial review, which
is included in judicial power. 
Q: When is there an actual case or controversy? 
A: There is one if it involves a conflict of legal
rights, (For example, kaning gina-raise na allegations
against the anti-terror law. This is the law, but it violates
the provisions of the Constitution, tapos naay mga rights in
the Constitution that appear to be violated by this law.)
Assertion of opposite legal claims susceptible of
judicial resolution as distinguished from mere
hypothetical or abstract differences or disputes.
interpreted and enforced on the basis of existing
law or jurisprudence.
In raising an Actual Case or Controversy, there is a
requirement of RIPENESS. 
Q: When is a question raised for constitutional
scrutiny are ripe for adjudication?
A: Kung dili man gud ripe, dili ka maka-ingon na naa
kay actual case or controversy because this is an
aspect of the actual case or controversy requirement,
so dapat ripe pud ang question. 
Q: When is a question ripe for adjudication? 
A: When the act being challenged has had a direct,
adverse effect on the individual challenging it. It is a
prerequisite as something had then been
accomplished or performed, and the person
challenging this act or law must allege the existence
of an immediate or threatened injury to itself as a
result of the challenged act.
32

So there must be something, there must be law, an
act done by the executive, and because of this act,
there is an injury already done or an immediate or
threatened injury that may be done because of this
act. If present na siya, you can say that the question
is ripe for adjudication. So we have cases to clarify
this part or aspect of the actual case or controversy
requirement.
The case should not equate to a mere request for
opinion and are hypothetical or contingent state of
facts.  di pud nimo tarungon imo arguments, but if you are
Moot and Academic Principle.  injury, imuha jud nang tarungon imo arguments
- A case is moot and academic when, by
reason of an occurence of a supervening
event, it ceases to present any justiciable
controversy and declaration would be of no
practical use or value.  3. Lis Mota
When we say moot and academic, meaning humana
ang issue. If the court will resolve it, wala na siya’y
value, in other words.
For example, there is this law, and before nag-decide
ang Supreme Court, gi-repeal na or gi-reverse na sa
Congress or this local sanggunian. So there is no will
to resolve this case anymore as a general rule,
because unsa pa may value sa iyang decision?
There's no more act or law to declare as
unconstitutional because it has been repealed,
among other things.
action, or a material interest affected by the
challenged official act.
Dapat mapakita nimo, in your petition, na ma-injure
ka. So what rights are set to be violated by this law.
You have to present that. Dili pwede na char-char
lang imong pag-file, as you will learn in the cases
later.
A party must allege such personal stake in the
outcome of the controversy kay kung wala man gud
kay pakialam sa outcome sa case, wala kay interes,
adversely affected by it, imminent na ang threat of
because you are poised to be damaged or injured.
The locus standi requirement -- unless a person is
injuriously affected, he has no standing.
- Literally translates to litigation moved, the
motivation of a legal action.
- As a requirement for judicial review, the
constitutionality of an official act may be the
subject of judicial review, provided that the
matter is not placed collaterally.
Dili pwede na imong main action before the court is
actually for ejectment, but nakita nimo na naay law
na related to your case for ejectment na gusto nimo
ipa-declare na unconstitutional, unya gibutang nimo
as one paragraph na "actually, unconstitutional pud
ni siya na law." No, you cannot do that.

You have to present the question of constitutionality

Political Question Doctrine  as THE MAIN issue of the case that the court cannot
- If it is a political question, dili ni siya pwede resolve your issue, if dili niya i-touch ang issue of
hilabtan sa court kay it is a question that is constitutionality. So dapat mao to siya. 
given to the people to answer. Dili pwede ang
courts ang mag-decide ana. The constitutionality issue must be properly raised
- So if there is, ang gi-present lang sa court sa and presented and its resolution is necessary to the
political question and they can't resolve it, determination of the case, so much so that the case
then walay actual case or controversy.  would not be determined or resolved by the court if it
cannot rule on the constitutionality of this issue you
2. Legal Standing (Locus Standi) are presenting.
- Suitor must show that he has sustained, or
will sustain a direct injury as a result of the

33
4. Issue of constitutionality must be raised at the
EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
- Dili dapat siya after-thought.
- Ordinarily, as a rule, if it is not raised at the
trial, it cannot be considered on appeal.
Dili pwede na you have given, you start at the RTC,
naa kay case didto, if you are challenging a law or
act to be unconstitutional, didto ang instance, ang
earliest opportunity na i-present nimo ni siya nga
issue.
Dili pwede na pag abot sa Supreme Court, "tama
diay no, pwede diay nako ni himuon diri, ibutang
nalang nako ni sa ako pleading na unconstitutional."
Makita na sa court, i-raise na sa party, sa imong
opposing party na this is an afterthought, that would
be a ground for the dismissal because kung dili siya
raised at the earliest opportunity, mawala ka sa
requisites of judicial review.
Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity
does not mean that you go directly to the
Supreme Court. In fact, we have many cases here
that the court has declared na you cannot, as a rule,
directly go to it if you have questions of
constitutionality of these acts or laws.
Dapat i-respect gihapon nimo ang heirarchy. The
earliest opportunity requirement means that the
question of constitutionality should have been
immediately raised in the proceedings in the
lower courts, if matagaan ka ato nga opportunity to
do so.
If the SC ang first nimo nga tribunal na gi-file-an ug
case, then the court is the venue where you are
given the earliest opportunity to raise the case, so ok
lang na siya, pero kung gitagaan naka ug opportunity
before and wala nimo to siya gi-raise, maging
possible ground siya for the dismissal of the case.
Now, kadto ang requisites, so remember that.
However, in the cases decided by the Court, naa pud
tay mga exceptions. For example, exceptions to the
actual case requirement, naa tay, kaning case of
Province of North Cotabato v. Government,
involving the memorandum of agreement of ancestral
domain.
The issue here is the fact of the law or act in
question, was not yet effective, kay wala pay pirma. It
needs the signature of the parties. However, the
court here said that, it can already resolve this case.
Concrete acts under the law, naa nay law e, are not
necessary to render the controversy, even a singular
violation of the constitution and/or the law is enough
to awaken judicial duty. Meaning, kung naa nay
balaod tapos naa nakay assertion diri na
unconstitutional siya because it is inconsistent with
the provisions of the constitution, then you can
invoke this exception, even if wala pay kaso, wala
pay nakasuhan na terrorist, wala pay napriso, among
other things, wala pa juy na-directly injure because of
this ruling of the court.
Also, if the case is moot and academic as a rule, dili
na na siya i-resolve sa court because it is useless.
However, the court has also decided in many cases
that it can still resolve the case, even if its moot and
academic, if the following requirements are present.
Exceptions sa moot and academic, the court will
still resolve even if moot and academic na:
1. There is a grave violation of the constitution
2. The case involves a situation of exceptional
character and must be of paramount public
interest
3. The issue raised requires the formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar,
and the public
4. The case is capable of repetition, yet evading
review. 
Kailangan siya mu-act. Also, the enforcement of
judicial review of a penal statute so long as there is a
real and credible threat of persecution can be done.
NOTE: As I wrote, gi-add nako nga case sa atong
page, this Southern Hemisphere vs. Anti-
Terrorism Council. Nganong gi-add man nako ni?
Kay relevant ni siya sa issue karon, which is the
34
challenges to the validity of the Anti-Terror Law. Kay
kani siya, gi-challenge pud niya nag Human Security
Act, the old anti-terror law. So basaha ninyo unsa
ang way sa pag-resolve sa court ato nga questions
of constitutionality ato nga balaod. Makita nimo didto
na wala pa may nakasuhan, wala pa may napriso,
etc, so how did the court deal with those arguments.
Transcendental Importance
- Generally connected to the locus standi
requirement.
- The rule on locus standi may be relaxed
because it is a procedural technicality if the
issue presented to the court is of transcendental
importance.
importance. Of course, not only alleged na
transcendental importance, you also have to prove
nga of transcendental importance jud ang issue nga
ginapresent sa court para ma-relax and rule on
standing.
Intergenerational Responsibility Doctrine,
- Which was decided by the court in Oposa vs.
Factoran.
- Involves environmental cases where the court
relaxed that requirement and established
Intergenerational Responsibility Doctrine that
you can represent generations yet unborn.
OPOSA v. FACTORAN

Q: Unsa man nang transcendental importance?

A: Before it may be considered as transcendental

importance na issue or case, the court must
consider the following factors:
1. The character of the funds or assets
involved in this case.
2. The presence of a clear case of
disregard of a constitutional or statutory
prohibition.
3. The lack of any party that has a more
direct and specific interest in raising the
present questions.

So if the issue presented before the court presents

an issue of transcendental importance, importante
kaayo siya kay it will affect everyone, among other
things (i.e. kani naay violation of the constitution na
blatant, or kaninang funds involved, gikawat right
before the eyes of the people, in broad daylight)

Even if dili nimo ma-meet ang standing requirement,

pwede na siya i-take cognizance of the court under
this doctrine.

For example, ikaw mu-adto ka sa SC kay naa kay

gusto i-file na case against the constitutionality of
anything tapos feel nimo na wala kay standing, i-
allege gihapon nimo na naa kay standing and then
naa kay panlaban pa jud no, additional, even if I don't
have standing, but this matter is of transcendental

35
Kani nga case involves timber license
agreement, so naay illegal logging or naay
logging nga sanctioned or allowed by the
DENR.
Oposa here, wanted to stop the logging, even if
allowed by the DENR. Nag-file siya ug case to
enjoin the issuance of these permits.
Gi-ingon ni Oposa is that he is not merely
representing himself but also presenting the
generation, future generation of children yet
unborn, I'm presenting them in this case.
So of course, the argument karon sa DENR,
how can you represent a nonexistent individual
wala pa gani nabuhi ning mga tawhana you’re
claiming representing them.
Ruling:
SC said that he can do that.
This is a landmark ruling where the court
established the concept of "Intergenerational
Responsibility" pero of course ang kinaiyahan,
ang nature hindi man mabuhi for one
generation, it will succeed many many
generation.
If one generation wants to preserve nature, he
is doing for the rest of the future generation,
specifically for the enforcement of
environmental time so kani sya
"Intergenerational Responsibility " it is usually
limited to environmental cases.
Atty. Gil: ikaw, if gusto mo siya i-argue before
the court "Intergeneration Responsibility" even
if dili sya environmental case, ikaw bahala ka
but kani na case supposedly, Oposa vs
Factoran, Jr, involves environmental cases
where the court relaxed that requirement
and established Intergeneration
Responsibility Doctrine that you can
represent generations yet unborn.
FUNA v. AGRA (2013)
Funa challenged the validity ng appointment ni Agra because
he was holding 2 offices na dili allowed by Constitution. Ang
argument ni Agra here is you do not stand to be injured to my
appointment to this position. “Unsa man ang K nimo? Apil baka
sa mga appointees? Apil ka diay sa mga pilian?”
Gi-challenge ni Agra ang standing ni Funa. You do not stand to
be injured by me holding this position
Ruling:
Ana ang Supreme Court, to have legal standing, suitor must
show he has sustained or will sustain the direct injury or he/she
material interest in the issue affected by the challenged official
act.
However, the court has time and again acted liberally on the
locus standi requirement when it gives certain individuals who
are not or otherwise directly injured.
In the case of Funa v. Agra, ana ang ang SC na this issue is of
Transcendental Importance because we're going to decide
this case na pwede pa sya mabalik in subsequent cases.
There is an allegation of violation of the constitution, so we
have to decide because it is important to us. This locus standi
requirement is mere procedural technicality which can be
relaxed or waived by the court if the matter is of
Transcendental Importance.
This case before Us is of transcendental importance, since it
obviously has "far-reaching implications," and there is a need
to promulgate rules that will guide the bench, bar, and the
public in future analogous cases. We, thus, assume a liberal
stance and allow petitioner to institute the instant petition., so
kailangan sila (SC) mag-rule.
Si Agra karon, ni hawa sya sa iyang position. One of which he
is holding is Solicitor General. Ana sya, we don't need to
decide this since it has become moot and academic.
SC:
“Although the controversy could have ceased due to the
intervening appointment of and assumption by Cadiz as the
Solicitor General during the pendency of this suit, and such
cessation of the controversy seemingly rendered moot and
academic the resolution of the issue of the constitutionality of
the concurrent holding of the two positions by Agra, the Court
should still go forward and resolve the issue and not abstain
from exercising its power of judicial review because this case
comes under several of the well-recognized exceptions
established in jurisprudence. Verily, the Court did not desist
from resolving an issue that a supervening event
meanwhile rendered moot and academic if any of the
following recognized exceptions obtained, namely: (1)
there was a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the case
involved a situation of exceptional character and was of
paramount public interest; (3) the constitutional issue raised
required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the
Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4) the case was capable of
repetition, yet evading review.23
36

BELGICA v. OCHOA
This case involves the ruling of the court and validity of
the Pork barrel system.
Under this case, court held na unconstitutional in pork
barrel kabalo mo unsa nang pork barrel katong time gi-
file nya ang case na naay lump sum discretion refunds
na ginahatag sa atong legislators pag senator ka naa
kay 200B, congressman 70 million and you have a hand
as to how you’re going to spend it oh dba makipagpatay
atong legislator sa position. gi challenge validity aning
PDAF, this Pork barrel before the SC. gi discuss sa case
na ang requirements sa judicial review.
Isa sa mga argument sa state here na walay standing
ang nag file nang case ana ang SC ang mga ubang
petitioner diri are doing so there part as a tax payer and
they have their interest because ilaha ning public funds
ang involve as tax payers they posses the standing to
question the validity of this Pork Barrel which in involves
spending of public funds. so wala daw actual case or
controversy according to the state because ge ammend
na nakita na sa congress ang challenge against the
provision gihimo sa congress in the subsequent general
appropriation act or law gitangal nila tong discretion na
ge hatag sa ligeslator so ana sila no more actual case or
controversy.
so ana ang court no, an actual case or controversy
requires the contrariety, meaning naay opposite legal
right antagonistic positions. here, it is present because
ang position sa state is valid sya, ang position sa mga
challengers sa PDAF its invalid, so na silay opposing
views .
ripeness— dili raw ripe because kato na amend na ang
provision. Again ana ang SC this issues are ripe
because this laws are still operating and existing,
operational so ripe for adjudication.
naa pud tay mootness tong gi ingon nato ganiha nga
reform because of the changes removing the discretion
in GAA. ana ang SC, this moot and academic principle is
not in magic ___ that will cause the dismissal of the
case. again kani even if the case moot and academic
naa tay exception meaning e resolved gihapon sa court
provided that katong requirements na ge enumerate nato
ganiha are present. kani — violation of the constitution
character, (foundation) of principle and capable of
repetition and all of these are present in this case.
FUNA v. MECO
Issue here is COA is not auditing the MECO it is USEC public funds
why COA not auditing this. So ang COA nag insist sya how MECO is
under our audit jurisdiction because this is private entity. So nag file
karon si Funa kaso to the court of appeal to COA to do the audit of it in
the mean time pending pa ang case, si COA you know what sge e
audit nalang ni para wala nay issue. E dismiss na dapat ang case ng
SC, because we decided the audit the MECO. So the insurance of the
COA here kani office 2011-698 to audit deciding to audit the MECO
rendered the issue moot? is it the issue here supervening event that
makes the issue moot and academic that there is no more need to
compel COA to audit this MECO because it is now auditing it?
RULING
Yes, The petition filed by this Funa before the court na established nya
tong exception moot and academic principle doctrine. so in other
words, the court still resolved this case kay basig in the future mabalik
napud dili nato e audit sa COA, so atleast karon masettle nato kong
unsan ang extent sa audit power sa COA vis-a-vis the MECO.
So, ana ang court we will still resolved this case it is become moot and
academic, because this 4 requirement are present so mao to sya:
(1st )there a allegation to COA has been remised in its duty.
(2nd) paramount public interest because of it kani failure of COA to
faithfully fulfill his duty involving public funds.
(3rd) are not public interest in the resolution on the issue on legal
status of MECO which is novel issue unresolve before and.
(4th )kani sya, it will guide disprovig will guide the bar and the public.
What about the locus standi requirement?
Taxpayers, voters, concerned citizens, and legislators may be
accorded standing to sue, provided that the following requirements are
met:
(1) the cases involve constitutional issues;
(2) for taxpayers, there must be a claim of illegal disbursement of
public funds or that the tax measure is unconstitutional;
(3) for voters, there must be a showing of obvious interest in the
validity of the election law in question;
(4) for concerned citizens, there must be a showing that the issues
raised are of transcendental importance which must be settled early;
and
(5) for legislators, there must be a claim that the official action
complained of infringes upon their prerogatives as legislators.
Here, funa is a concerned citizen and the issue is of transcendental
importance. The locus standi requirement is relaxed.
37
 DISINI v. SOJ
So, this case talk about the Cyber constitutionality of the
several commission of "Cyber Crime Prevention Act of 2012'.
The matter on judicial review is not really discuss extensively in
the majority opinion, that's why I refer to you in the separate
opinion of Justice Sereno. So here she discussed with legal
basis the concept of pre enforcement judicial review. — this
is related to the actual controversy requirement, “the actual
controversy requirement has been largely interpreted in light of
the implications of an assailed law vis-a-vis legally demandable
rights of real parties". So, dapat naay act of the government
and naay right na na violate and injury in other words, dapat
before you can file dapat may actual case or controversy.
However, the court has exceptionally recognized the
possibility of lodging the constitutional challenge even if there is
no pending case involving a directly injured party. So, pwede
diay for example kanang "Anti-Terror Law " wala paman na
priso wala paman na patay or na execute or na brand as a
terrorist, pwd kaparin muadto sa supreme Court and she cited
"Southern Hemisphere vs Anti Terrorism counsel “ where the
court that held the possibility it possible for pre enforcement
judicial review of a penal statute as long as there’s a real and
credible threat of execution involving exercise of the
constitutionally protected conduct or activity.
An anticipatory petition, therefore, assailing the
constitutionality of criminal statute that has yet to be
enforce, may be given due course by the court if the
following circumstances are shown: 1st. the challenged law
or provision forbids a constitutionally protected conduct or
activity. For example, ikaw na woke man sguro ga twitter twitter
ka ana ka didto "this law this Anti-Terror Law prohibits my right
to operate speech". You can no longer criticize the
government, because of this law okay. So, swak ka sa imong
(1st) requirement so apil didto na mo challenge ani. 2nd. there
must be realistic imminent and credible threat or dangers
sustaining direct injury or there is an imminent threat of facing
prosecution If this prohibited conduct or activity is carried out.
so meaning, Ikaw you want to exercise your right of free
speech and if you do so ma prison ka because of this law or
pwd ka mahulog diri realistic imminent credible threat and
finally, the factual circumstances surrounding the prohibited
conduct or activity sought to be carried out are real not
hypothetical and speculative, and are sufficiently alleged and
proven. so you also have to prove this requirement. dili ka pwd
mag kwan lang bugnabugna lang dapat pakita jud e convince
nimo ang ourt na nahitabo jud ni. If enforce nato ni and if we do
this act convince the court, because dili ni sya general rule.
Kani anticipatory petition kong dili muni ma establish, there is
no actual case or controvesy, mo ana court nga why would we
resolved which present hypothetical situations, so the court will
dismisse. you have to convince the court na present ni nga
requirements.
IMBONG v. OCHOA
In this case involving the constitutionality of the several
provision of the RH reproductive Health law.
It is argued by the proponents of this law that can challenge
against it that it does not present any actual case or
controversy bacause the law has yet to be implemented. Ang
mga nag file kini na case katong mga medical practitioner
because of the provision that force them to do something
against there will etc... so ana ang propents sa law ha? wa
kaman gi kasohan ge nimo ge unsa or wala kaso kaso
unconstitutionality mao tong argument sa state: this law cannot
be challenge because wala paman sya gi-implement.
they claim that the question are not complete and ripe for
adjudication, no one can charged in violating any of its
provision. so again actual case or controversy deems that
there must be existing case or controversy that is appropriate
or ripe for determination lest the decision of the court will not
amount to a mere advisory opinion. dapat may actual case
because the rule is courts do not sit to adjudicate mere
academic question to satisfy scholarly interest however
intellectually challenging they may be. controversy must be
justiciable, definite, complete touching the legal
relationship of the parties having adversely legal interest in
other words, the pleadings must show active antagonistic
assertion of legal right and the denial thereof, it must concern
real and tangible not a mere theoretical question or issue.
so dapat ipakita nimo naa jud syay issue and related to this
requirement is the requirement of ripeness which means that
challenge law or act has had a direct adverse effect on the
individual challenging it or for a case to be considered ripe, it is
required that something had been accomplished or performed
by either branch of the government or before the court may
come into the picture.
si challenger, dapat ma alleged niya ang existence of
immediate injury even if wa pa sya na injured pero naay
immediate and threatened injury he can already sue. he must
also shown this sustained or its immediately in danger as a
direct result of the act complained of.
So in other words, ang evolution sa atong jurisprudence, nag
set ta ug actual injury test in the previous cases, you should
be injured dapat na adversely affected ta but later on Disina vs
SOJ separate opinion, Southermost hemisphere and Imbong
vs Ochoa there is now a recognition that imminent injury or
threaten injury pwde na nimo sya magamit as an issue to fullfil
this ripeness related to the actual case or controversy
requirement even if wala kapa na priso pwd.
Does the fact that the law in question is not yet in effect negate
the requisite of ripeness? explicit ang court na NO.
38

Province of North Cotabato v Government
In this case involving the MOA so where it was argued to
court had no authority to raise that issue raise there.
Ana ang SC that the fact of the law or act in question
not yet being effective, it does not negate ripeness.
why? concrete acts under a law are not necessary to
render the controversy ripe. why? if there is an
allegation of violation of the constitution because of the
provision in this law or act which is contrary to the
provisions of this constitution, you can already challenge
it. dili na nimo hulaton na naay ma hitabo na violation of
the law because if you are able to mount or establish that
there is inconsistency between the constitution and the
law challenged, you can invoke the case of Imbong vs
Ochoa, Province of North Cotabato katong separate
opinion ni justice Sereno, Disini vs SOJ even the
Southern Hemisphere case. so pwd ni sya mao ning
himoon sa petition before the SC against Anti- Terror law
ang state ge argue na none of the requisite for judicial
review are present mao to sya to walay actual case or
controversy the law is not yet enforce wala pa sya
nagtake effect kay wala ka file so wala actual case of
Controversy so those arguing for the presence or
existence of the actual case or controversy requirement
they can cite this case. Yes dili pa effective ang law,
never the less we have Imbong vs Ochoa etc… if there
is a single violation of the constitution or the law,
this is already enough to awaken judicial duty.
so again by an action of legislative branch( pasa ug mga
balaod),seriously alleged to have infringed the
constitution, it not only becomes a right but a duty of
judiciary to settle the dispute.
Also Transcendental Importance Doctrine because the
matter involved here is Transcendental Importance. RH
law e abortion, medical facility, violation of the right to
religious freedom of a medical officials here e
established nila kani ang mga provision that violate their
right so ana ang supreme court we have to resolve this
issue because there are Transcendental Importance.
ARAULLO v. AQUINO III
Talk about the "Disbursement Acceleration Program."
katong na impeach si former Chief Justice Corona and eventually
removed from his office after his impeachment. ge expose ni sa
isa ka mga senator na si Ginggoy katong gi kasohan na siya sa
Ombudsman. The senator who voted for the ouster of former
Chief Justice Corona; they were given lump sum money tig 50
million sila for them to vote. So, gi file ang case karon. Base in
the allegation si Araullo et.al nakita nia ang basis ang executive
ngano man naay kwarta sila? ngano nahimo nila na nakahatag
silag kwarta sa mga legislators? So, ang basis sa anang others
ang basis sa administration during the time was that they have
disbursement acceleration program giving the executive the
power to realign their savings even to other branches of the
government. Pwede nila e re-align not only to the executive but
gihatag pa nya sa legislative pwd pud sa judiciary so mao to ang
challenge.
Ana ang Araullo et.al you cannot do that because under the
constitution it is supposed to be limited to the executive
department etc.. The issue relevant sa atong case is the
discussion of requisite of judicial review — ana ang SC an actual
and justiciable controversy exist in this cases because there
is incompatibility in the prospective of the parties on the
constitutionality of the DAP. One arguing valid sya not
unconstitutional while the other party is saying that it is
unconstitutional. So because of the incompatibility of their legal
views, it is already considered, naa nay conflict with their legal
right, therefore, there is an actual justiciable controversy.
The issue here also ripe for adjudication, because the
act here already been implemented by DBM. gi gasto na ang
kwarta. Moreover, the implementation of the DAP entails the
allocation and expenditure of huge public funds, nga dapat e
resolve ni sa SC.
Isa sa defenses sa Aquino sa administration was that
because of this issue, gi terminate na nila ang DAP. You know
what issue ra ta hilom nata laylo nata.
Does the termination of the DAP rendered this case moot
and academic?
NO. As a rule, it is a ground for the dismissal of the case,
however, as we discuss earlier naa tay exceptions to the moot
and academic doctrine.
Are those present in this case?
YES. The termination of the DAP was a supervening event
that mooted. So, walay nay DAP in other words. Nevertheless
the case will have to resolved by the SC because the issue falls
under the exceptions, katong ge ingon nato earlier. naa tanan
requirements. In addition, even if a walay standing ang parties,
walay actual case or controversy, ana ang SC, issues post in this
case are of Transcendental importance to the entire nation, so
because of Transcendental importance doctrine we will relax
the procedural requirement of this case and go to the
substance. mao nang atong timanan. It was in to the court what
could be the substances of the case so tanawan muna nila kong
ang kani upat buok nga requirements and there some
requirements related doctrine are present, kay kong e indivisible
39
palang sya basis on the court will not bother to resolve the
substances. Wala ka established actual case or controversy what
is the point wala kay standing? What's the point if the court
resolved without Ruling to the constitutionality? What's the point
exercise judicial review? You have to established itong mga
requirements for you can force the court to rule substantive issue
in your petition or constitutionality of whatever your challenging.
OSMENA v. ABAYA
Talks about the public suit. So, take note unsa sya plaintiff
asserts a public crimes assailing and allegedly illegal
official action he does so as representative of the General
of Public at bayani. Anyway, public suit he may be a
person effected ni deffected to any person it could
assumed as a stranger wala ko na basa na stranger sya.
Line of category of its citizen cases ang petitioner or a
taxpayer, she is suing for the collective majority of the
people he representing them. So, it is a public suit he has
to if it is public suit. Yes, he showed is entitled to seek
judicial it has to sufficient interest order to allowed to sue
as a citizen or taxpayer. Public sue ang rule ana is to apply
direct by this variety of act your challenging. You must to
show that you have sustained a direct injury and you
cannot just a assert that he has or you have substantial
interest which is common to all member. General Rule you
have to go direct injury so we apply this direct injury test.
Meaning, if you one have standing it must have a personal
and substantial interest in the case, that will sustain and
resustain and direct injury as a result. So kato for example
ge attack as to your as a taxpayer, so, you want to sue but
ang imong issue is not related to public funds. We cannot
sue that you are suing as a taxpayer wala kamay unsa
man imong injury maexperience ana nya suit or suing as a
voter and does not involve case involving your right to vote
that is your standing so kailangan gihapon nimo e prove
ang direct injury, but, ofcourse, as we said earlier naay
exception ning standing locus standi requirement. You
able to established an issue of Transcendental
importance.
kani sya Osmena vs Abbaya case. Talk about a contract
to built the mactan international airport. Gusto pa stop
because of the irregularities in the precurement dili daw
qualified tong bidder tapos karon na human naman ang
bidding naka daog nato si Villar. So, need paba nato ni e
resolve? Is this case moot because of the award? Ana ang
SC no even the case ana sila na e dismiss because of
supervening event even, this case has supervening event.
The court does not hesitate to resolve the legal,
constitutional issues, here in the subsequent issuances
notice of award execution of possession agreement turn
over of a etc.. they not remove the issue of qualification of
this entity, pati form ambit the judicial review it supports in
fact retains by its power determine this person, entity was
qualified to pay in the first place even if na award na ang
contract na execute na niya ang project. Pwd gihapon e
resolved sa court it is not erase the issuing of the
qualification of the party or bidder.
—-———-
Laude vs. Judge Ginez-Jabalde
Here, remember the incident with that transwoman was
murdered by a US military personnel in that area, so they
filed a case against that person then pending ang case
before the RTC gi release siya, gi transfer from local jail
to another place (it was a camp). The relatives of the
victim clamoured that “this is not allowed”. Gi challenge
nila ang validity of VFA. The VFA is not binding and this
is unconstitutional daw according to the relatives. So
they went to court, bearing those arguments and the
court in passing on the same, niabot sa SC ang kaso on
the issue of the constitutionality of the VFA.
The court ruled that, kani nga inyong petition, which
seeks the transfer of this person pursuant to the
provisions of the VFA from the camp to the local jail, the
resolution of this issue does not hinge on the validity of
the VFA. In any case, your argument that the VFA is
unconstitutional, is not the main issue. Inyuha lang
siyang gi apil as side issue.
Ang the court emphasized that, if you want to challenge
this act, this is an agreement entered into between our
country and the US definitely an act of the gov’t, an act
of 2 states, if you want to challenge the validity of this
act, then you comply with the requisites for judicial
review and isa diri sa mga missing na mga
requirements here is that this issue on the
constitutionality of the VFA is not the LIS MOTA of
your case. Pwede siya maging subject sa case provided
that it is not raised collaterally. Dapat siya ang imuhang
main issue na ginapresent sa court not something na
side issue lang or naisip lang nimo na apilon siya. When
we talk about lis mota, it must be the issue that
moves you to litigate. If the court can decide on the
issue that you present without ruling on the validity of the
VFA, then it will not rule on the validity of the VFA.
Judicial review of official acts on the ground of
unconstitutionality may be sought or availed
provided that the resolution of the case is necessary
40
to the determination of the case (it must be the very
LIS MOTA). Here the constitutionality of the VFA is not
the very LIS MOTA so there’s no need for the court to
even bother. But the court still discussed the validity of
the VFA in this case and cited an earlier ruling where it
upheld the validity of the said agreement.
Resident Marine Mammals vs. Reyes
There was this joint agreement (exploration agreement)
between the Philippines and Japan to explore this area
somewhere rich in resources and because of this
endeavor, it was alleged na na-damage to siya na area
(e.g. fish kill). So karon naa tay mga tree hugers, mga
environmental activists representing the marine
mammals in that area (mga turtles, dolphins, dugong).
They are filing this case to stop the joint exploration
agreement kay violative of the constitution. Now the
argument against them is that they do not have standing.
Ang kaning mga marine mammals, they cannot go to
court and sue (since di man sila maka ing ato, there’s no
personality and you have no personality to sue).
The activists said that not only juridical and natural
persons should be given legal standing, we should give
these trees, rivers, animals, personality to sue because
who else can sue if sila ang directly injured? Ana ang
SC, no need na because if this is a case under the
Rules on Procedure for Environmental Cases the
rule on standing has been relaxed. These entities
that you intend to protect can be represented by
citizens. Again, for locus standi, environmental
cases have been given a more liberalized approach.
Re: the argument of the environment na dapat naay
locus standi ang mga marine mammals, ana ang SC, we
have not gone that far in our jurisdiction. Nevertheless,
naa naman tay Rules on Procedure for Environmental
Cases na pwede ta as citizen, enforcing our
environmental rights, sue before the court in
representation of the nature. Naa didto, citizen suit –
any Filipino citizen, in representation of others,
including minors or generations yet unborn, they
may file an action to enforce rights or obligations
under environmental laws.
Remember the case of Oposan vs. Factoran? Gibutang
na sa SC sa Rules on Procedures for Environmental
Cases kani siya na recognition that any Filipino Citizen
may represent – on the principle that humans are
stewards of the nature. So this is special however for
environmental cases. The need to give these mammals
the legal standing has been eliminated by the rules
because the rules allow any Filipino citizen to bring a suit
to enforce our environmental laws.
Saguisag vs. Ochoa
This is where Saguisag et.al. challenged the validity of the Enhanced Defense
Cooperation agreement. The EDCA authorizes the US military forces to have
access to and conduct activities within certain agreed locations in the county. It
was not transmitted to the Senate on the executive’s understanding that to do so
was no longer necessary.
Accordingly, in June 2014, the DFA and the US Embassy exchanged diplomatic
notes confirming the completion of all necessary internal requirements for the
agreement to enter into force in the two countries. The constitutionality of the
EDCA was challenged between the Phil and the US was challenged here. It is
alleged that respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction when they entered into EDCA with the US, claiming that
the instrument violated multiple constitutional provisions. In reply the respondents
argue that petitioners lack standing to bring the suit.
Kani na agreement was entered into only by the President and the US (walay
hand ang Senate). So according to those naga challenge, this cannot be done
kay this agreement should undergo deliberation from the Senate and should be
approved the Senate because under the constitution, treaties (according to
Saguisag et. al. this is a treaty) should acquire the 2/3 votes of the senate under
the constitution, therefore, this agreement is unconstitutional. Here, it was not
transmitted to the Senate because the executive thought that it was no longer
necessary.
The argument of the State is that these persons challenging the validity of the
agreement failed to comply with the requisites of judicial review, among others,
the requirement of standing (why are you suing, you are not directly affected),
wala pud daw actual case or controversy.
Pero ana ang SC, there is an actual case or controversy here because the senate
in the facts of this case already expressed its position through a resolution
contrary to that. Ana ang Senate, actually dapat gi ani ninyo sa amua.
Unfortunately, no one from the Senate joined the suit. So ang nag kaso diri is
Saguisag et.al. ug mga congressmen (members of the HOR).
Ana ang SC, because of this antagonistic positions between the senate and the
republic, there is an actual case or controversy – there’s an issue (kinsa bay tama
sa ilahang duha? Tama ba na muagi nig senate or dili na?). There is an actual
case or controversy ripe for adjudication. In fact, the agreement was already
effective. The president already sent an official confirmation to the US embassy
that all internal requirements of the Phil have already been complied with.
Standing. Ana ang SC the present petitions cannot quality as citizen’s, tax
payers’ or legislators’ suit. Here, the Senate should have been the one who
have filed that pleading, however, the Senate has not formally filed any
pleading to join the suit. It only issued that resolution na kailangan ug senate
concurrence but they did not join the suit so in order words katung mga nag file
ug kaso katung mga nag file ug kaso, wala daw legal standing.
PHILCONSA vs the PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT
involves the challenge and the validity of the
Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro the
41
CAB, and the Framework Agreement the FAB
entered into between the government and the
MILF.
It is argued that these are unconstitutional because
they create a virtual substate known as the
Bangsamoro Political Entity replacing the ARMM,
and it guarantees to make amendments to the
Constitution to shift form the present Unitary State
to a Federal State.
Also they make reference to a previous decision of
the court which rendered this similar agreement
according to them void and unconstitutional.
Likening it to the MOA-AD, Ancestral Domain
Agreement.
The Province of North Cotabato vs GRP case
The Province of North Cotabato vs GRP case involved
the Memorandum of Agreement. The court rejected the
argument that this MOA-AD remains to be a proposal
because it's not a mere proposal that does not
automatically create legally demandable rights and
obligations. Because the exucutive then was about to
sign the initialed MOA-AD with the MILF in the presence
of the representatives of foreign states. Only the prompt
issuance by the court stopped that.
So meaning, this agreement only needed this action by
the executive.
In the present case however, there is no actual case
or controversy. Because unlike the MOA-AD, which is
unconstitutional, this CAB and the FAB, they mandate
the enactment of the Bangsamoro Basic Law in order for
these agreements to be implemented. No law however,
has been enacted while this case was pending or in fact
even after the case was decided. So you cannot say na
enforced yung CAB and FAB. Because before they can
exist there must be the BBL. There is no BBL so what's
the point?
Now what if there’s a pending bill sa BBL?Can the court
already say that there is an actual case or controversy
and therefore declare this ageement as unconstitutional?
No. the court has no power to declare a proposed bill
contitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in
the nature of rendering advisory opinion on a proposed
act of congress. Dili pwede pangunahan sa SC ang act
sa Congress. Bill pa sya nahimong law. So the court
cannot say that a law is unconstitutional otherwise,
it will be exercising its powers as legislature. So
when you post on social media i.e., Anti-Terror Bill is
unconstitutional, do not do that wait until it will become a
law. The court cannot decide on pending bills.
PADILLA v CONGRESS
This talks about Martial law. So the President declared a
state of Martial Law in Mindanao. Padilla et. Al went to
the SC and claimed that under the Constitution, before
the President can declare Martial Law, there should be a
joint meeting/session between the House of
Representatives and Senate to decide on wether or not
the Martial law will be extended or shortened. Wala man
gud na gihimo sa 2 houses. In fact, they made separate
resolutions showing support. according to those
challenging the act, dapat joint.
These petiitons have been filed by certain individuals
asserting that the HOR have breached a constitutional
duty to convene in a joint session to deliberate on this
Presidential Proclamation. They are suing as filipino
citizens, members of legal profession, tax payers, etc.
Their challenge of a purportedly unconstitutional act
according to them, gives them legal standing. Sen de
lima also joined the petitioners of this case because
according to her there is a duty to jointly convene to
examine this proclamation of the President and as a
legislator, as member of the Senate, ni file sya ug case.
The SC said that there is an actual case or controversy.
There is an alleged omission on the part of Congress,
which constitutes neglect of their Constitutional duties.
When an act or omission of a branch of the
government has seriously alleged to have infringed
the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but
duty of the judiciay, the SC to settle the dispute.
Now since naextend naman ang Martial Law, nahuman
nalang ang period nga gideclare ug Martial Law (which
was challenged in this case), the Court said that also if
the case as has been followed by succeeding events, it
can still be resolved even if it is moot and academic.
Exceptions to moot and academic apply.
42

PROVINCIAL BUS v DOLE
The bus drivers were given set of benefits kesa sa
mag apas pa sila sa ilang quota considering lots of
accidents happened, etc.. So gi challenge ani sa
mga bus operators ang VALIDITY of this
arrangement. They said that it is unconstitutional
since naa nay set nga contract so dili na dapat
manglihabot and DOLE & LTFRB etc.
Courts in their Power of Judicial Review can
declare executive and legislative act void if they
violate the constitution. This is Power of Judicial
Review that even if equal branch, the Court can
decide their acts unconstitutional.
Now, does the Court have the power to determine
the validity of administrative acts? YES.
However, the issues raised in this case kay walay
actual case or controversy. There are no facts for
the Court to infer to the unconstitutionality of this
issuance. Why? Because the operators here
alleged that ….
“to implement this issuances MAY result to
diminution to the income of the bus drivers &
operators” however, according to the Court, there
is no basis since it relies only to speculations of
the word MAY. There is even no assurance as to
how granting bus drivers these benefits will
result to lower income for them. The court
claimed that the petition is SPECULATIVE. Courts
do not render advisory opinions so if you cannot
show basis, dili jud tan awon sa court. The
associations here have no standing.
Also, the SC said that the associations here have
no standing because their certificates of
incorporation have been revoked.
KMU v AQUINO
Talks about the constitutionality of the increase of the SSS
Contribution rate to .6%. It is claimed that these issuances
were issued pursuant to an unlawful delegation of power
under the law. So dili pwede mahimo sa SSS because
wala syay power under the law to do that. The delegation
of the power is too broad.
According to Section 18 and increase of the contribution
violates the rights of the workers. The SC said they are
invoking judicial power based on Art. 8 Section 1... that
this is a challenge on the issuance of SSS claiming that it
violates the rights of the workers.
First Clause: The traditional judicial power of the court to
settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally
demandable and enforceable.
Second Clause: The determination if there is a judicial
abuse is the expanding power of the court.
When is there an actual controversy?
-Conflict of legal rights
-opposite claim of rights susceptible of judicial resolutions.
-the person challenging an Act to be unconstitutional must
prove or establish that there is a legally demandable and
enforceable right. It must be REAL and SUBATANCIAL
controversy.
In other words, there should be an actual controversy or
issue. Mapakita dapat sa challenger na ang requisite for
judicial review.
The Courts are bound by the Doctrine of Separation of
Powers. So, it will not rule on any matter or cause of any
matter if there is no actual or sufficient injury to a right
because it respects the acts of its quo equals. Courts
interpret laws but ambiguities may only be identified in the
actual situation. Here, the petitioners failed to prove how
the increase of contribution affects the constitutional rights.
They cannot simply rely on the constitution as to how
these rights can be legally entitled to a fix amount and
proportion of SSS contributions.
So dili pwede na mag allege lang ka nga naay violation.
Accusations must be prove so that we will have an actual
case or controversy. Otherwise, you are making the court
to examine the law to its face. There must be a basis.
RIPENESS – when a challenged governmental act is a
completed action such that there is a direct,complete
and adverse effect on the challenger. It requires that
something have been performed by the government
before the Court may step in. There must be an
43
allegation of an existence of an immediate or
threatened actual injury that results from the action.
In relation to this is the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies - related to the requirement of
ripeness. Dili hunog imong issue kung wala nimo gihurot
ang imuhang possible remedies in the agency, this
administrative body na ginachallenge nimo ang acts.
Courts may only take cognizance of a case or controversy
if the challenger/petitioner has exhausted all remedies
available to it under the law. THIS IS THE GENERAL
RULE.
Why is it required to exhaust administrative remedies?
-It ensures the administrative agency exercises it power to
its full extent which includes its power to correct or
consider its actions. It makes the issue presented before
the court RIPE. You must make sure na nahimo na nimo
tanan before you go to court. THAT WOULD BE WHEN
YOUR ISSUE would BE RIPE. It thus would be premature
for courts prior to the exhaustion of remedies. Also, it
would violate the principle separation of powers. Because
an administrative agency empowered by law to undertake
a sovereign function, it is given such powers to exercise
such functions to the full extent of the law grants it. It
involves power to reconsider their own decisions on a
motion of reconsideration.
If you would not avail of your administrative remedies,
there would be a PREMATURE JUDICIAL
INTERVENTION. The failure to exhaust administrative
remedies affects the ripeness to adjudicate the
Constitutionality of a governmental act and this in turn
affects the existence of the need for an actual case or
controversy before the court can exercise its power of
judicial review.
Here (In this case), it is clear that they fail to exhaust
administrative remedies because they could have
challenged those issuances before the issuing body
(SSS), instead what they did was to go directly at the
Supreme Court.
SC: You should have exhausted your remedies; you
should have presented this to the SSS first. For them to
reexamine the issuance.
Also, this case enumerates the exceptions to the principle
of exhaustion of administrative remedies. READ THEM.
(Dili na I apil sa pag-explain kay ma-encounter sa 2nd year)
MOOTNESS
Allegation: SSS is set to issue new resolutions anyway, so
what’s the point in discussing the current issuances?
SC: Exception to the mootness principle are present here
(4 requirements)
Parties were able to prove that the matter is of
transcendental importance.
CALIDA vs TRILLANES
Calida went to the SC to stop the legislative inquiry.
Legislative inquiry is an inquiry in relation to the passage
of laws (will discuss this in more detail in Art. 6)
There is an alleged legislative inquiry made by the
senate involving the conflict of interest of Calida kay naa
daw contracts sa government na security services
contracts na gi undertake ang government na firm ni
Calida ang owner.
Calida: This inquiry has nothing to do with legislation.
This should not continue if it has no relation in the view
of legislation.
Trillanes argued that: Yes, we have have this senate
resolution 1760 (Committee on Civil Service of the
Senate). However, there was a change in the referral.
Primary: Blue Ribbon Secondary: Committee on Civil
Service.
Because of this, according to Trillanes, the issue
becomes MOOT and ACADEMIC.
SC: Yes, it is MOOT and ACADEMIC.
Important requirement in Judicial review: There must be
an actual case or controversy.
It becomes moot when it loses its justiciability, there is no
longer a conflict of legal right which would entail judicial
review.
However, there are exceptions (4):
-There is grave violation of the constitution
-the exceptional character of the situation and the
paramount public interest is involved;
-when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of
controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the
public;
-the case is capable of repetition yet evading review
None of the established exceptions exist in this case.It
has already become moot and academic.Why?
There was already a change of composition of the
Senate. Trillanes’ term already ended.
44
 FALCIS VS CIVIL REGISTRAR
Case about: Same-sex marriage. Questions the legality
of Art. 1 and 2 of the Family Code.
Nganong unconstitutional according to Falcis?
-Right to equal protection (nganong straight couples lang
ang ginaallow ng family code?) So… Violative of the
constitution. Therefore, unconstitutional.
Requirements of Judicial Review (4)… Unsa diri ang
gi emphasize sa court na missing?
-Actual case or controversy.
Why? Because he did not apply for marriage license.
According to Falcis, his petition was complete, as he
complied with the requisites of Judicial Review. He also
went directly to the Supreme Court and according to him,
it was justified because the matter was that of
transcendental importance and the validity of Articles 1
and 2 of the Family Code was lis mota. The Supreme
Court ruled that the petition does not present an actual
case over which it can properly exercise its power of
Judicial Review.
Judicial Review is the Court’s power to
decide on the constitutionality of exercises of power
of the branches of Government. This does not mean
that it is superior to all the other branches, it’s just
implementing what the Constitution has given it to
implement: to interpret the Constitution vis-à-vis the
allegations of violation thereof. This is merely an
exercise of a power granted by the Constitution to
determine if an act of a co-equal branch of the
Government is unconstitutional. As the Court discussed
this expansion of power (besides the traditional power of
exercising judicial power) gave the Court even more
power. In fact, because of this expansion of power, the
Court can be considered as a political branch of the
Government.
The extension of the Court’s Judicial Power is by
no means an abandonment of the requirements of
Judicial Review (legal standing, actual case or
controversy, lis mota, and earliest opportunity). Here,
there is no actual case or controversy — the court does
not issue advisory opinions. As the person challenging
the validity of laws or acts, he/she must be the one to
prove that the requisites exist.
The standing, actual case or controversy
requirement requires the issue of ripeness is generally
treated in terrms of actual injury that there must be a
direct adversary. Here, there is no actual facts that
present a real conflict between the parties of the case.
His 29page pleading neither cites any reputable
studies.The petition firmly stays upon the realm of
speculative ….
Lesson from this case: Before we go to Court to
challenge the constitutionality of a law, you have to be
prepared. The four requisites must be present,
otherwise, the Court will dismiss the petition. Premature
petitions may only do more harm than good.
45

MADRILEJOS VS. GATDULA
A case filed against the publisher of tabloids alleging that
scandalous, obscene, and pornographic materials were
being published (a violation of an ordinance). Those who
were petitioned against, went to the Supreme Court
alleging that one of those charges against them (violation
of ordinance 7780), was unconstitutional with regards to
their freedom of speech. However, as a development, all
cases were dismissed against them under the RPC (as
well as the violation of ordinance 7780). In light of the
dismissal with prejudice of the cases against them, the
instant case has been rendered moot and academic (no
justiciable controversy). Considering the four exceptions,
what was taken into account is the fourth: the case is
capable of repetition. The allegation here is that even if
the cases were already dismissed, another case could
be filed for the violation of the ordinance in the future, so
the Supreme Court should rule on whether this
ordinance is unconstitutional or not.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court argued that the requirement for this
exception on capable of repitition yet evading review to
be present, two elements:
(1) the action was in its duration too short to be fully
litigated prior to its expiration; a swift action is
needed
(2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same
complaining party would be subjected to the same
action again. The Supreme Court emphasized that
there is a time element under the first requirement
that the duration too short to be litigated).
It must be noted that the purpose of these individuals in
filing the case was to stop the filing of the criminal case
against them. However, their actions will require an
order, and the order is not of such inherently short
duration that it will lapse before they see that it is
challenged. In other words, the time element is not
present, because the Order can still be challenged
before the DOJ. Thus, the time constraint does not exist
and therefore the requirement in the fourth exception
(the case is capable of repetition) is not present. So it will
not fall under the mootness exception.
PIMENTEL vs LEB
one of the arguments here was that mali daw ang gi
himo sa mga challengers of this LEB issuances to
challenge tha law undr the pretense that there is grave
abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court’s judicial power involves the
power to settle actual controversy. It includes the
duty to determine if there was grave abuse of
discretion on any part of the branch of the
Government. Under the Constitution’s enumeration of
the powers of the Supreme Court, it includes the power
to pass upon the constitutionality of laws.
Is there an actual controversy on this case?
YES. There were allegations that LEB’s issuances were
violative of academic freedom, etc. The Court also noted
exceptions: facial challenge (the law is not yet
enforceable) and antagonistic positions can give rise to
an actual case or controversy.
Legal standing?
YES. Petitioners were law students who weren’t able to
enroll because they did not pass the Philsat. It also said
that this issue is of transcendental importance so it gives
them standing.
FUNCTIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
- Checking, Legitimating and Symbolic
Judicial Review results to checking; the Court may negate
acts that are declared unconstitutional. The Court can also
declare acts to be not unconstitutional. It could also be
symbolic, even if the conditions are not met, simply
because there is a need for the courts to lay down the
rules or principles which would serve as a guide for the
bench bar and public.
JAVIER VS. COMELEC
Javier claims that the case he filed in the Comelec
was railroaded; he was denied due process. Before
the case could be decided by the Supreme Court,
he was gunned down.
Should the Court still need to resolve the case
despite the fact that he will no longer benefit
from its decision if its in his favor?
Ruling:
46
The Court nevertheless resolved the case. “It is
not only the highest tribunal, but also the
conscience of the Government. Citizens come
to the courts of law and must be given justice.”
The issue in this case became moot and
academic. The abolition of the Batasang
Pambansa and the disappearance of the office in
dispute between the petitioner and the private
respondent have made the issue moot and
academic. Nevertheless, the Court still resolved the
case. There are larger issues involved that must be
resolved now, once and for all, not only to dispel
the legal ambiguities here raised. If it were not for
the supervening events, the decision of the
Comelec would have been set aside for having
violated the Constitution.
CENTRAL BANK EMPLOYEES VS BSP
A law creating the Central bank — pay benefit scheme
which separated the high ranking between the low
ranking employees. The high ranking employees enjoy
the benefits that will be crafted by the Central Bank itself,
while the low ranking will enjoy the benefits enjoyed by
the general law which is the law passed by Congress in
so far as payment/salary is concerned for government
officials. The validity of the law was challenged as it
violates their right to equal protection. why should there
be a distinction when everyone are employees.
The Court discussed the concept of Relative
Constitutionality:
Relative Constitutionality- The constitutionality of a
statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a
mere comparison of its provisions with applicable
provisions of the Constitution, because the law may be
constitutionally valid when applied to one set of facts,
and invalid in its application to another. A statute valid at
one time may become void at another time because of
altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical
operation becomes arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity,
is open to inquiry and investigation in the light of
changed conditions.
The Courts adopted this view in Rutter vs. Esteban
where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a
moratorium law wherein it was valid as an exercise of the
State’s Power, but the contingent enforcement of the law
will be unreasonable and oppressive because of the
subsequent changes.
In the case of Central Bank Employees vs. BSP, the law
used to be valid but now it violates the equal protection
clause. If the challenge of the statute is premised on the
denial of fundamental rights or equal protection, judicial
scrutiny ought to be more strict. The Court struck down
provisions that delineated the employees.
Presumption of Constitutionality – acts that are
challenged to be constitutional, are presumed to be
constitutional
47

PEREZ v. PEOPLE
Perez was accused of malversation and was
imposed a high penalty for a small amount of
money that he stole. According to him, the penalty
was invalid because it was cruel and unusual. The
Supreme Court argued that there is a strong
presumption of constitutionality accorded to
statutes. To challenge a statute, or provision of
law, one must go Court to prove its
unconstitutionality. The constitutionality of the law is
presumed so we can respect it. The general rule is
that every statute should be regularly accepted and
presumed to be valid and constitutional. He who
attacks it has the burden of proving that such law is
repugnant to the Constitution.
COURTS EXERCISING JUDICiAL REVIEW
Q: Can any court for that matter exercise the power
of judicial review?
A: According to decisions of the Court, all courts can
exercise this power.
Q: What is the basis?
● Article XVIII, Section 5
Article XVIII, Section 5. “The power of the Court is
to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may
provide.”
● matter, vested with judicial power can declare these
● Final judgments and orders rendered by a
court involving constitutionality and validity.
(YNOT vs. IAC).
● In other words, a lower court has already
decided on these matters and can be
reviewed by the Supreme Court. Thus, a
lower court has the power to decide on these
issues subject to the power of the Supreme
Court to review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm them. Only courts however vested
with judicial power can exercise judicial
review. Quasi-judicial bodies (ex. NLRC,
Ombudsman, City Fiscal) cannot exercise this
power.
YNOT v. IAC
This case is all about the Carabaos that are
smuggled. So katong nakumpiskahan ug carabao,
gi adto nya sa court alleging that invalid ning law or
issuance which allows the confiscation of the
carabaos. Ynot questioned the validity of Executive
Order No. 626-A to the Regional Trial Court.
However, the RTC argued that it cannot rule on it
constitutionality. The Supreme Court, in turn,
“declared that while lower courts should observe a
becoming modesty in examining constitutional
questions, they are nonetheless not prevented from
resolving the same whenever warranted, subject
only to review by the highest tribunal (the Supreme
Court). We have jurisdiction under the Constitution
to "review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on
appeal or certiorari, as the law or rules of court may
provide," final judgments and orders of lower courts
in, among others, all cases involving the
constitutionality of certain measures. This simply
means that the resolution of such cases may be
made in the first instance by these lower courts.”
●
BROKENSHIRE VS. MINISTER
Can the NLRC rule on the constitutionality of
wage orders?
No. Only the Supreme Court, and courts for that
issuances unconstitutional. The Regional Director is
without authority to declare an order or law
unconstitutional.
ONGSUCO VS. MALONES
Can the RTC rule on the validity of issuances?
Yes. Paragraph 2(a) of Section 5, Article VIII of the
Constitution, expressly establishes the appellate
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and impliedly
recognizes the original jurisdiction of lower courts
over cases involving the constitutionality or validity
of an ordinance. On rare instances can one go
directly to the Supreme Court to challenge the
48
 constitutionality of a law.
As a rule, courts with judicial power can decide
or exercise the power of judicial review. Quasi-
judicial bodies do not have such power.
POLITICAL VS. JUSTICIABLE QUESTION
Political questions refer to those questions which,
under the Constitution, are to be decided by the
people in their sovereign capacity or in which full
discretionary authority has been given to the
legislative or executive branch of the government.
(examples: cases about the Cory Aquino government
and Libingan ng mga Bayani). Full discretion has
been given to the President, and if you are not able
to show that there is a limitation on the exercise, that
could be a political question which is beyond judicial
review. These questions are concerned with the
wisdom, not legality of a particular measure. It
could require the Court to determine whether or not if
the Executive’s exercise of discretion was wise (there
is no comparison or allegation to a violation of the
Constitution or law for that matter.
The determination of whether or not an issue is
justiciable or not, lies in the answer to the question of
whether there are constitutionally imposed limits on
powers or functions conferred unto it. If there are
limits, then the courts are duty-bound to examine
whether the branch or instrumentality of the
government properly acted within such limits. And
that becomes a justiciable question because the
courts will now compare if the government really
went beyond the limitations. If not, then it becomes a
political question.
POLITICAL JUSTICIABLE
refer to those questions Answers the question of
which, under the whether there are
Constitution, are to be constitutionally imposed
decided by the people in limits on powers or
their sovereign capacity functions conferred unto
it.
full discretionary courts are duty-bound to
authority has been given examine whether the
to the legislative or branch or instrumentality
executive branch of the of the government
government. properly acted within
such limits.
OPOSA VS FACTORAN
According to the State, the issue presented (timber
license agreement) presents a political question.
However, the Supreme Court says its’s not a political
question. What is involved here is the enforcement of a
right to a balance of a healthful ecology vis-à-vis the
issuance of timber license agreements. It’s not a political
question because there are limitations and it should be
determined if there are violations to such limitations. the
political question doctrine is no longer, the
insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial
power; this used to be an insurmountable obstacle but
because of the innovation in the 1987 Constitution.
The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the
Constitution states that:
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice
to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
Government.
“The Court can already determine whether or not the
exercise of discretion was done with grave abuse. It
broadens judicial power to enable the courts of justice to
review what was before forbidden territory to wit, the
discretion of the political departments of the
government.”
The exercise of discretion involves the exercise of
wisdom. When the court decides whether or not there is
grave abuse of discretion, it will also determine the
wisdom, more or less. That is now allowed under the
Constitution. If the court sees that the discretion
exercised was gravely exercised (illegal or contrary to
due process or to the Constitution) then the Court can
rule accordingly. And even if it is an exercise of
discretion, it used to be beyond the power of the courts,
now it is not.
49
 “As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and
particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon
even the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and
the legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or
excess of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse
of discretion.”
VINUYA VS ROMULO
Case involving comfort women. Petitioner wanted
their claims before Japan. Because they suffered
injury, they are asking for money claims and they
wanted their claims to be endorsed by the DFA to
Japan. DFA rejected their claims on account of the
existing treaty with Japan. Claims were already
waived because otherwise, it will weaken our
relationship with Japan. Petitioners then went to the
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court forced the DFA
to espouse or endorse their claims to Japan.
According to the Supreme Court, “certain types of
cases often have been found to present political
questions. One such category involves questions of
foreign relations. It is well-established that the
conduct of the foreign relations of our government is
committed by the Constitution to the executive and
legislative—’the political’—departments of the
government. As a rule, the exercise of this
political power is not subject to judicial inquiry or
decision.
Is this absolute?
No. Not all cases implicating foreign relations
present political questions, because there are
instances when a treaty or executive agreements
(which are foreign relation matters) can be
invalidated, so it’s not fully beyond judicial review or
fully political question.
However, is the question whether the Philippine
government should espouse claims of its nationals
against a foreign government a political question?
Yes. The authority for foreign relations is committed
by our Constitution not to the courts but to the
political branches. In this case, the Executive
Department through the DFA has already decided
not to endorse the claim. It is the best interest of the
country to waive all claims of its nationals for
reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of
1951. The wisdom of such decision is not for the
courts to question. From a Domestic Law
Perspective, the Executive Department has the
exclusive prerogative to determine whether to
espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan. It was so
decided and the Court anymore cannot set aside the
exercise of that wisdom. The Executive Department
(DFA) has determined that taking up petitioners’
cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign
policy interests. For the Court to overturn the
Executive Department’s determination would mean
an assessment of the foreign policy judgments by a
coordinate political branch to which authority to make
that judgment has been constitutionally committed.
The Constitution itself has entrusted to the Executive
the conduct of foreign relations. Whether or not to
espouse the claims is left to the determination and
judgement of the Executive. The Court cannot
interfere with its wisdom in the conduct of its foreign
relations. It cannot direct the Executive Department
to force the DFA to espouse the claim.
SAGUISAG VS. OCHOA
This case talks about Judicial Supremacy. When
the Judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional
boundary, it doesn’t mean that it is superior to the
rest. It does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act
but only does so because it is empowered to do so
under the Constitution. What the courts do when
they are exercising judicial review, is they compare
the act challenged and the validity thereof vis-à-vis
the Constitution. In other words, the superiority here
is not the courts, but the superiority of the
Constitution to the challenged act, because after all,
the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Is the case’s question regarding the validity of
the EDCA a political question?
50

NO. The question simply is “did the EDCA follow
the provisions of the Constitution in its adoption?”
It’s not a political question because there is a
limitation imposed in the Constitution and an
alleged violation of such a limitation within the
power of the courts to determine.
DIOCESE OF BACOLOD VS. COMELEC
The Diocese posted election tarpaulins (Team
Patay vs. Team Buhay). Comelec found the
tarpaulins to be contrary to the existing issuances
of size of campaign materials. Comelec ordered
that the tarpaulins be taken down or to reduce it
within the limits per their issuance. The Diocese did
not do so, and the Comelec filed a criminal case
because the former violated the issuances. The
Comelec argued that this was a political question
because they are empowered under the
Constitution to set these limits and they have
decided in their wisdom to set the tarpaulin sizes.
The Supreme Court answered in the negative. The
question before the Court is “did the act of the
Comelec in imposing these restrictions and the
threat of filing a criminal case violate the
constitutional right of the Diocese of Bacolod to free
speech?”
This is not a political question, but a justiciable
question. The concept of a political question,
however, never precludes judicial review when the
act of a constitutional organ infringes upon a
fundamental individual or collective right. Even
assuming arguendo that the COMELEC did have
the discretion to choose the manner of regulation of
the tarpaulin in question, it cannot do so by
abridging the fundamental right to expression.
When political questions are involved, the
Constitution limits the determination to whether or
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
part of the official whose action is being questioned.
If grave abuse is not established, the Court will not
substitute its judgment for that of the official
concerned and decide a matter which by its nature
or by law is for the latter alone to decide.
EFFECTS OF DECLARATION OF
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY
Two Views:
1. General Rule: Orthodox View
An unconstitutional act cannot be the
source of any legal rights or duties. Nor can
it justify any official act taken under it. Its
repugnancy to the fundamental law once
judicially declared results in its being to all
intents and purposes a mere scrap of paper.
It is not a law, it confers no rights, no duties,
no protection, creates no office. It’s as if it
has not been passed at all.
Article 7, New Civil Code.
“Laws are repealed only by subsequent
ones, and their violation or non-observance
shall not be excused by disuse, or custom
or practice to the contrary.
When the courts declare a law to be
inconsistent with the Constitution, the
former shall be void and the latter shall
govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and
regulations shall be valid only when they
are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution.”
2. Practical View:
Operative Fact Doctrine
- The existence of a statute prior to its
unconstitutionality, is an operative fact.
It operated, it existed as a fact which
people may have, during that time,
obeyed. And if there are effects
because of compliance to the statute
(before being declared
51
 unconstitutional) they should be
recognized as an operative fact. The
effect of the subsequent ruling as to
invalidity may have to be considered in
various aspects, with respect to
particular relations, etc.
This Operative Fact Doctrine is the
exception to the general rule. It only applies
to matters of equity and fairplay. In other
words, if it cannot be proven that there is
resulting equity or fairplay when the Operative
Fact Doctrine is applied, the courts will not
apply it.
SERRANO DE AGBAYANI VS. PNB
(Landmark case on Operative Fact Doctrine)
The orthodox view that an unconstitutional act
cannot be the source of any legal rights or duties.
Nor can it justify any official act taken under it. Its
repugnancy to the fundamental law once judicially
declared results in its being to all intents and
purposes a mere scrap of paper.
The weakness of this view is that it may not be
sufficiently realistic because prior to the declaration
of nullity of this act, it was valid. Because of this, we
must recognize the actual existence of this law prior
to the determination of unconstitutionality that it is
an operative fact and it has consequences which
cannot justly be ignored. The past cannot always
be erased by a new judicial declaration. The effect
of the subsequent ruling as to invalidity may have to
be considered in various aspects.
ALDOVINO VS. ALUNAN
In this case, the courts applied the general rule.
An administrative issuance upon the Department of
Tourism resulted in the termination of several
employees. They, in turn, challenged the validity of
the issuance. The court ordered that the
employees be paid their back wages (the time
when the termination of their employment was
illegal). The argument is that, at that time, the
issuance was valid, therefore they were not entitled
to back wages during the time they were
terminated. The Supreme Court argued that that
would be inequitable. It would be unjust not to give
them renumeration, and it would result to inequity.
Operative Fact Doctrine: There must be legislative
or executive measure meaning a law or issuance
that was invalidated by the courts and from the
passage of such law until its invalidation, there are
effects. The effects of the law when relied upon by
the public in good faith will have to be recognized
as valid under the Operative Fact Doctrine. It can
be invoked however, only in situations where the
nullification of the effects of what used to be valid
will result to inequity and injustice. In other words,
we apply the Operative Fact Doctrine if it would
result to equity and justice.
HACIENDA LUISITA VS. PARC
This case talks about the application of the Operative
Fact Doctrine to executive acts of the Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council.
If the courts declared the executive acts as
unconstitutional, should they still be recognized as valid
then?
The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The
actual existence of a statute or executive act prior to
the determination of their unconstitutionality have to
be recognized under the Operative Fact Doctrine.
The Doctrine is not only limited to laws but also to
executive acts subsequently declared as invalid.
Executive acts are broad enough to encompass
decisions of administrative bodies and agencies under
the Executive Department.
COCOFED VS. REPUBLIC
The Supreme Court did not apply the Operative
Fact Doctrine because it will result to inequity
52
and injustice. The distribution of the UCPB shares
that should have been given to the farmers. What
happened was they were given to the middlemen
and businessmen. The Court declared the issuance
as invalid because the law that allowed the
distribution of those shares was unconstitutional.
The owners of the shares (middlemen and
businessmen) argued that the issuance was valid at
the time they received the shares, therefore
Operative Fact Doctrine must apply. The Supreme
Court said no, because it will result to inequity. The
shares should have been given to the farmers in
the first place.
CIR VS. SAN ROQUE
Can the Operative Fact Doctrine be applied to a
mere administrative practice?
The Supreme Court said that for the Operative Fact
Doctrine to apply, there must be an executive or
legislative measure, a law or executive issuance. In
this case, there is no law or executive issuance that
was invalidated by the Court, except this BIR ruling.
Is the practice (they relied upon) equivalent to a law
or executive issuance?
No. It is ascertained by one of the parties that the
procedural requirement was an administrative
practice that was regularly practiced (nakasanayan
na). The Supreme Court also ruled that it is a
glaring error to apply the Operative Fact Doctrine to
validate what was done under that practice. There
must be a formal recognition of such a practice that
is relied upon in good faith. A mere administrative
practice not formalized into a ruling will not
suffice.
BELGICA VS. OCHOA
Now that the PDAF was declared unconstitutional,
should the funds spent for projects be refunded to
the congressmen and contractors?
The Supreme Court saw no need for refund,
because when it was not yet declared
unconstitutional, it was valid. So we respect its
validity.
ARAULLO VS. AQUINO III
Should the P50 million from the DAP be returned?
The Supreme Court said that there is no need,
because at the time when it wasn’t declared as
unconstitutional, it was followed because it was
presumed as valid. Therefore, we apply the
Operative Fact Doctrine.
FILM DEVELOPMENT VS. COLON HERITAGE
A provision of a law required that a portion of the
revenue should be given to the Film Development
Council of the Philippines (FDCP). Later on, the
validity of that provision was challenged before the
court. RTC declared it as unconstitutional. Is the
FDCP required to reimburse, refund all that it
received during the time before the law was
declared unconstitutional? No. Because the funds
were already used by the FDCP. Also, the
Operative Fact Doctrine recognized that FDCP
received funds they are doing so consistent to a
then valid provision of law. They merely
complied with the law and should be
recognized.
MANDANAS VS. OCHOA
In this case, the shares of the LGU’s Internal
Revenue Allotment (IRA) with regards to National
Internal Revenue taxes. The Supreme Court
declared that what the Congress was doing
(distributing to the LGU’s based on National Internal
Revenue taxes), because the LGU’s share should
be based on National Taxes.
Should the Congress reimburse?
No. The Supreme Court recognized that at that time
before the law was declared unconstitutional, it was
valid. The succeeding contributions to LGU’s
53
however should now be based on the National
Taxes.
TUPI VS. FAUSTINO
A lawyer was caught overspeeding and was fined.
He went to the court to have the speed limit law
declared as unconstitutional. According to him, it
violates due process clause, Local Government
Code and the Land Transportation and Traffic
Code. The Trial Court ruled that it was
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also agreed
with the RTC. The RTC had a directive to have all
collected fines refunded. Tupi invoked the
Operative Fact Doctrine.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Operative
Fact Doctrine does not apply. Because, the
Operative Fact Doctrine is a mere exception, so
before you can claim it, you have to prove that it
will result to justice and equity. It can be
invoked however, only in situations where the
nullification of the effects of what used to be
valid will result to inequity and injustice, but if
there is no inequity and justice, then the general
rule applies.
The Operative Fact Doctrine doesn’t apply here
because this was first not raised by any party
before the Trial Court and before the Supreme
Court. This issue was not heard by the parties so it
would be prejudicial if all of a sudden the Court will
apply this doctrine. Also, there was no reliance by
the public in good faith upon the Municipal
Ordinance because it was challenged. There were
no public beneficiaries of the Municipal Ordinance
at least none that we know of, precisely because
the doctrine was not raised and argued by any of
the parties. There is also no inequity or injustice
that would arise from the refund of the fines, in
fact the opposite would happen. It would be
iniquitous and unjust to deny respondent the
refund of the monies he had paid under protest
pursuant to an illegal exaction.
Southern Hemisphere v. ATC (2010)
Southern Hemisphere case, this talks about the
constitutionality of RA 9372 which is then considered as
the anti-terror law or the Human Security Act of 2007
signed on March 6 2007. Gichallenge karon ang validity.
No locus standi
There are many people who challenged the validity of this
law. Mga human rights groups, mga Bayan Muna,
Akbayan, Gabriela, groups who think they will be
adversely affected by the effectivity of this law. The Court
discussed extensively on the requirements of the exercise
for judicial review so first walay locus standi ang mga
party, many of them. The organization who challenge the
law asserts that they have legal standing because they are
being suspected as communist fronts of the government,
especially the military. They claim that this is a matter of
transcendental importance and so we can sue as citizens
and as taxpayers.
The Supreme Court asked, kinsa man sila? These groups
alleged every subject to close security surveillance by
state security forces. Nakita nil ana ginamanmanan sila,
followed by suspicious persons, vehicles with dark
windshields, etc. In other words, ang mga panghitabo
karon, dili na sya bag-o, this has happened before. They
claim that this is the actions of the state against them
because they are branded as terrorists. So, they can now
be charged under the Human Security Act. 
The Supreme Court said that have not presented a
personal stake in the outcome because none of them face
or charged under the law, they have yet to show any
connections to their surveillance and the implementation of
the law. So, in other words the Court said wala paman mo
gi kasohan, you have not been adversely affected. There’s
no case yet against you. In other words, ang inyo
allegations are mere theories or hypothesis. Based, not on
facts, but your fears.
The groups mentioned, they would like for the Supreme
Court to take notice, meaning dili na nila mag prove ng
evidence. Court na mismo ang mag take cognizant ng
mga facts that they have been tagged as militant
organizations that they are fronting the CPP-NPA.
Supreme Court kabalo namo ani na fact na red tag nami
54
therefore we are already subject to the harassment etc. of
the State now strengthen by this anti-terror law. The same
allegation against the Anti-Terror Law, nahitabo na diay
sya before. So mao ni ang allegation. Supreme Court take
note of the fact that we have been Red tagged already.
So, therefore we have standing.
The Supreme Court said that it cannot take notice of the
tagging there are grounds before the Court take notice of
certain facts. The Supreme Court said that ang inyo
apprehension is not enough. Insufficient to substantiate
their plea that they are, take judicial notice of them tagged.
There’s also no specific charge or proscription under
the law filed against them three years after its
effectivity. this belies the any claim of imminence of the
perceived threat emanating from the so-called tagging.
Wala man gani mo gikasohan three years after it became
a law. In other words, Supreme Court said there’s no
standing for them.
According to Southern Hemisphere, Atty Soliman, they
said the issues they raised are of transcendental
importance. This must be settled early and are of far-
reaching implications. The Supreme Court said, mere
invocation of human rights advocacy has nowhere
been held sufficient to clothe litigants with locus
standi. Petitioners must show an actual, or immediate
danger of sustaining, direct injury as a result of the
law’s enforcement. To rule otherwise would be to corrupt
the settled doctrine of locus standi, as every worthy cause
is an interest shared by the general public.
No actual case or controversy
The pleadings must show an active antagonistic assertion
of legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof on the
other hand; that is, it must concern a real and not merely a
theoretical question or issue. There ought to be an actual
and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief
through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished
from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a
hypothetical state of facts, here, the pleadings do not
show the foregoing.
The Court is not unaware that a reasonable certainty of the
occurrence of a perceived threat to any constitutional
interest suffices to provide a basis for mounting a
constitutional challenge. This, however, is qualified by the
requirement that there must be sufficient facts to enable
the Court to intelligently adjudicate the issues.
Without any justiciable controversy, the petitions have
become pleas for declaration relief, over which the Court
has no original jurisdiction. Then again, declaratory actions
characterized by “double contingency,” where both the
activity the petitioners intend to undertake and the
anticipated reaction to it of a public official are merely
theorized, lie beyond judicial review for lack of ripeness.
Cannot be avoided under a facial challenge
The law is also assailed for being intrinsically vague and
impermissibly broad the definition of the crime of terrorism
under RA 9372; hence, may be facially challenged. (Note:
A facial challenge contends that a government law, rule,
regulations, or policy is unconstitutional as written --- that
is, on its face.)
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a vague statute
and to one which is overbroad because of possible chilling
effect upon protected speech.
The theory is that when statutes regulate or proscribe
speech and no readily apparent construction suggests
itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a single
prosecution, the transcendental value to all society of
constitutionally protected expressions is deemed to justify
the allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no
requirement that the person making the attack
demonstrate that his own conduct could not be regulated
by a statute drawn with narrow specificity.
This rationale does not apply to penal laws because it
supposed to have a chilling effect in the first place.
Otherwise, what’s the effect of penal laws.
What is a State?
A community of persons, more or less numerous,
permanently occupying a definite portion of territory,
independent of external control, and possessing a
government to which a great body of inhabitants
render habitual obedience.
A politically organized sovereign community
independent of outside control bound by penalties of
nationhood, legally supreme within its territory, acting
through a government functioning under a regime of
law.
A sovereign person with the people composing it
viewed as an organized corporate society under a
government with the legal competence to exact
obedience to its commands.
Elements of a State
1. People
· The inhabitants of the State; the number of
which is capable for self-sufficiency and self-
defense; of both sexes for perpetuity.
o Inhabitants;
o Citizens;
o Electors.
2. Territory
· A fixed portion of the surface of the earth
inhabited by the people of the State. I must be
sufficient enough to provide inhabitants with
resources and the inhabitants must protect it.
55
3. Government
· The agency or instrumentality through which
the will of the State is formulated, expressed
and realized.
4. Sovereignty
· The supreme and uncontrollable power
inherent in a State by which that State is
governed.
· It is the right to exercise the functions of a
State to the exclusion of any other State.
While sovereignty has traditionally been
deemed absolute and all-encompassing on
the domestic level, it is however subject to
restrictions and limitations voluntarily agreed
to by the Philippines, expressly or impliedly,
as a member of the family of nations.
What is a territory?
A fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited
by the people of the State. I must be sufficient
enough to provide inhabitants with resources and the
inhabitants must protect it.
State Territory and Territorial Sovereignty
Without a territory, an entity cannot be a State.
The notion that a State occupies a definite portion of
the earth within which it exercises, subject to the
limitations of International Law, its exclusive authority
to the exclusion of other States lies at the basis of
International Law.
The exercise of such supreme authority by a State
over its own territory is known in International Law as
“territorial sovereignty”.
Territorial sovereignty signifies ownership and
possession of a territory, which entitles a State to
exercise its authority and jurisdiction over the
territory.
It is the right of a State to exercise over its own
territory, to the exclusion of any other States, the
functions of a State.
It has a positive and negative aspect. The first aspect
relates to the exclusivity of the right of the State with
regard to its own territory, while the second aspect
refers to the obligation to protect the rights of other
States.
The right to territorial sovereignty enables a State to
exercise the fullest measures of sovereignty powers
over its land territory, large measures over its
territorial waters and air space, and smaller
measures over its continental shelf and adjacent
area.
In addition, it enables a State to exercise sovereignty
over vessels and aircrafts that fly its flag or carry its
nationality, which are treated as its territory.
Many treaties and conventions have been concluded
to regulate State sovereignty over land, sea, airspace
and outer space.
Over the sea, there is the 1982 Convention on the
Law of the Sea, which replaced the 1956
Conventions related to the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone, the High Seas, the Continental
Shelf, and Fishing and Conservation of living
Resources of the High Seas.
ARTICLE I, 1987 CONSTITUTION
A. NATIONAL TERRITORY
The national territory comprises the Philippine
archipelago, with all the islands and waters
embraced therein, and all other territories over which
the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction,
consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains,
including its territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil,
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas. The
waters around, between, and connecting the islands
of the archipelago, regardless of their breadth and
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.
The Philippine Territory consists of:
· Philippine archipelago
· All the islands and waters embraced therein
· All other territories over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction
· Consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial
domains
· Territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the
insular shelves, and other submarine areas
· The internal waters (water around, between,
and connecting the islands of the archipelago)
What does “All other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction”
encompass?
This includes any territory which presently
belongs or might belong in the future to the
Philippines through any of the internationally
accepted means of acquiring territory.
56
 Foremost among these territories are what
are referred to by the 1935 Constitution as “all
territory over which the (1935) Government of the
Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.”
This also has reference to what was referred under
the 1973 Constitution as territories belonging to the
Philippines by historic right or legal title, that is, other
territories which, depending on the available
evidence, might belong to the Philippines (e.g.,
Sabah, the Marianas, Freedomland.)
The “Kalayaan Island Group” otherwise known as
the “Spratlys Islands” (PD 1596-June 11, 1978 and
RA 9522-March 10, 2009) Elements of a State
Sabah (RA 5446-September 8, 1968) 1. Territory
“Scarborough Shoal” or “Panatag Shoal” or
“Bajo de Masinloc” (RA 9522-March 10, 2009) We’re also claiming territorial jurisdiction over Sabah;
ang kalaban nato is Malaysia. This is a continuing
Components of National Territory
issue. We’re not letting go of that claim. Under RA
1. Terrestrial- Land mass on which the 5446, we are still asserting our claim over that island.
inhabitants live Also, the Scarborough Shoal, Panatag Shoal, Bajo
2. Fluvial- Maritime de Masinloc under RA 9522—The Baseline Law.
3. Aerial- Air space above the land and waters
We are also asserting that these areas are also our
of the State
territory. Kani sila, if ever in the future, i-rule na atoa
Fluvial gyud ni, atleast naa sila sa atong Constitution na
a. Internal or national waters- Bodies of water wala nato sila gipang let go.
within the land mass, among them are: rivers, bays
and gulfs, straits, and canals. Q: So, unsa man ang sulod aning National Territory?
The internal waters of the Philippines consist of the
waters around between and connecting the islands of A: As we’ve mentioned earlier: the terrestrial,
the Philippine Archipelago, regardless of their breath fluvial, aerial domains, land, water, and air.
and dimensions, incusing the waters in bays, rivers
and lakes. Fluvial includes the internal and national waters.
b. Archipelagic waters- Are the waters enclosed by ● These are the bodies of water within the land
the archipelagic baselines, regardless of their depth mass such as rivers, base, gulfs, straights,
or distance from the coast. and canals.
● So, the internal waters of the Philippines
c. Territorial Sea- The belt of the sea located consist of waters around and between
between the coast and the internal waters of the connecting islands of the Philippine
coastal state on the other hand, and the high seas on
Archipelago—mga sapa, mga creek—
the other, extending up to 12 nautical states from the
low-water mark, or in the case of archipelagic states, regardless of their depth and dimensions.
from the baselines. ● Archipelagic waters are waters enclosed by
the archipelagic baselines regardless of their
depth or distance from the coast.
Mao ning gina ingon nato na archipelago ta, so
lagyo-lagyo ang mga islands, so we have to
determine kung asa man gyud ang extent sa atong
archipelago.

57

Kung ma-determine na nato ang extent, i-drawing na
nato atong line, katong masulod sa line—archipelagic
waters.
And also, part of our territory ang atong ginatawag na
Territorial Sea.
● This is the belt of sea, which is located
between the coast and the internal waters of
the coastal state and high seas on the other.
● It is measured 12 nautical miles from the low
water mark, or in case of archipelagic state,
like the Philippines, from the baseline.
So, importante kaayo ma-determine ang baseline kay
mao ni sya ang mag determine sa extent sa atong
archipelago. Ang nasulod sa baseline, ma-consider
nato sya sa archipelago; ang tubig sa sulod,
archipelagic waters and internal waters.
Outside sa baseline, naa tay 12 nautical mile
distance na consider gyapon nato as part of the
territory—mura syag margin—na ang tawag nato is
Territorial Sea, and is also part of our territory. Dili
miskang kinsa lang maka enjoy ana na resource.
The state can still exercise sovereignty over
Territorial Sea to the exclusion of other state because
it’s still part of our territory.
NICOLAS VS ROMULO
Extent of the Philippine Territory
Under the Philippine Bill of 1902 (Philippine Organic
Act), the United States agrees to cede to the
Philippines all the territory it acquired from Spain
under the Treaty of Paris, plus a few islands later
added to its realm, except certain naval ports and/or
military bases and facilities, which the United State
retained for itself.
Areas previously not considered Philippine territory;
now ceded by the US to the Philippines
This is noteworthy, because what this means is that
Clark and Subic and the other places in the
Philippines covered by the RP-US Military Bases
Agreement of 1947 were not Philippine territory, as
they were exclude from the cession and retained by
the US.
Accordingly, the Philippines had no jurisdiction over
these bases except to the extent allowed by the
United States. Furthermore, the RP-US Military
Bases Agreement was never advised in for
ratification by the United States Senate, a disparity in
treatment, because the Philippines regarded it as a
treaty and had it concurred in by our Senate.
Subsequently, the United States agreed to turn over
these bases to the Philippines; and with the
expiration of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement in
1991, the territory covered by these bases were
finally ceded to the Philippines.
Naay history lesson diri under the Philippine Bill of
1902. This is the law na gipasa sa United States
creating the Philippine Government. Pinakauna, part
pa ta sa ila, we were conquered. So, sila ang nag
govern sa atoa na later on gihinay-hinay nila og
hatag sa atoa ang pag govern  sa atoang country. Isa
sa mga development sa Philippine Organic Act,
Philippine Bill, in that law, the Philippines and US
agreed to cede to the Philippines all the territory
acquired from Spain at Treaty of Paris, plus a few
islands later added to its realm.
Naay exceptions, naay mga naval ports and military
bases and facilities, which were retained by the US.
At that time, naa diay silay gipang reserve para sa
ilaha. This means that some areas gipang gamit as
military bases such as Clark and Subic; and not
considered as Philippine Territory because they were
excluded from the cession by the Spain to the US,
US to the Philippines, wala gi-include sa pag balik sa
atoa ang military bases.
However, subsequently, the US agreed to turn over
the bases to the Philippines and with the expiration of
RP-US Military Bases Agreement, the territory
covered by these bases was finally ceded to the
Philippines. In other words, after that, wala nay area
diri sa atoang country na ma-consider as foreign
military base na owned pa by the US, or considered
as their territory.
58
 SAGUISAG VS OCHOA
The EDCA issue. Ang gi-emphasize sa court diri
because ang President man gud ang nag enter into
that agreement without undergoing Senate
concurrence requirement, which is claimed to be
required before the EDCA to take effect. So, ana
ang Supreme Court in this case, the duty to protect
the state and its people must be earnestly and
effectively throughout the territory of the
Philippines. As we’ve mentioned earlier, naay
obligation ang mga tao to defend the state, to
defend the territory. So, kinsa man ang person who
has the primary obligation to do that?
Of course, the President, as the sole depository of
the executive power. He’s the guardian of the
Philippine Archipelago, including all islands and
waters embraced therein, and all other territories
over which we have jurisdiction or sovereignty.
The President man ang nag enter into EDCA. So,
gi-mention diri sa court ang composition sa atoang
territory: terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domain; these
are supposed to be protected by the President.
Now, there is power si President to do that—to
defend the state, to adopt means in order to
enhance the protection of the state, among others
entering into agreement with other countries to train
our forces. However, the Constitution itself
expressly provides certain limitations before the
President can enter into certain agreements, one of
which is entry of foreign bases. So, even if the
President is the sole depository of executive power,
he has the obligation and the power to protect the
state. Naay mga instances that the Constitution
itself limits his power to do so; and the court
recognizes that in the matter of foreign military
bases.
In the Constitution, it prohibits the entry of
foreign military bases, except by a way of a
treaty. So, dili pwede si President lang basta-basta,
except by a way of a treaty concurred in by the
Senate. And this is a clear limitation of his dual role
as a defender of the state and sole authority of
foreign relations. So, naay limitations ha.
REPUBLIC VS PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
Naay discussion here on territory because the Provincial Government of
Palawan argues that since its reservoir is located at the Malampaya Gas
Project, amoa ang territorial jurisdiction. So, dapat naa mi
share in the revenue of this project. We’re excluded in the
agreement, and since diri ninyo gina conduct, ang damage
sa environment ma-suffer namo. This is billions of pesos
na ilang claim para makakuha sila og share. Kung
makadaog sila ani na case, dako-dako sila og makuha na
share in the revenue of that project. This is disputed by the
Philippine Government; kani na area, this is already 8 km.
from your coastline and therefore, outside your territorial
jurisdiction; but, still in the territory of the Philippines.
So, ana ang Supreme Court, tama si Republic, Province
of Palawan is not entitled to the share in the proceeds
of this project.
Why? Unsa diay ang territorial jurisdiction sa LGUs, or
mga local government units?
Their jurisdiction is their territorial boundaries as
defined in their charter. You cannot create a Local
Government Unit as a rule without a law. Mao ng Organic
Law nila or charter nila. Ang Dabaw, naa tay atoang
charter. Naa tay Araw ng Dabaw. Ang local government
kelangan og charter for it to exist. Ang jurisdiction sa Local
Government Unit is in the charter. The Local Government
Code itself exemplify the term territorial jurisdiction. The
provisions therein however, refers to the LGUs territorial
boundaries. For example, in provinces composed of a
cluster, municipalities, components, barangays, these local
government units, dili sila mahimo kung wala ni
composition. These areas have areas themselves; they
are measurable. The territorial jurisdiction of these
government units must be properly identified—territorial
jurisdiction pertaining to physical location, area as
identified by its counter base and its organic law.
The territorial jurisdiction refers to LGU’s territorial
boundaries, and this interpretation is consistent with
the 1987 Constitution. This is the area that is hosting the
natural resources; it has to be fixed, and for LGU, you can
determine it based on organic law or charter. Therefore,
ang local territorial jurisdiction cannot extend beyond the
boundaries set by its organic law. So, dapat naay
particular set of space of surface ang geographic region,
mao na imong territory.
59
Ana ang Supreme Court, ang area na distributed by
law and not by your jurisdiction or power is the basis
of your equitable share. The court did not subscribe to
the argument of Palawan that they get to have a share kay
they exercise a certain jurisdiction over that area where it
is already beyond their territory.
Ang ilaha lang is under the Local Government Code, we
should have a share. So, ana ang Supreme Court, we do
not need to apply Federal Paramountcy because the
province itself recognizes na these resources kay dili sila
ang owner. It is settled that dominium belongs over the
state under the Regalian Doctrine. The owner of that
reservoir is not an issue. The issue to determine is if the
resources are located outside the territorial jurisdiction of
Province of Palawan. Palawan is not claiming ownership
over the reservoir, but the revenue over the Constitution
and the Local Government Code. Pildi ang Province of
Palawan. Ana ang Supreme Court, outside na sa imong
territorial jurisdiction.
Federal Paramountcy Doctrine, consistently ruled on the fundamental right of the
national government over the national wealth in maritime areas, to the exclusion of
the coastal state.
ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
Q: Unsa diay ning archipelago? Why is it
important?
A: This is important in certain laws. For example, our
penal laws because of its territorial in nature. As a
rule, nay instances na pwede gyapon kasuhan og
criminal charges or acts even if outside the
Philippines. We have to determine our territory
insofar as archipelago is concerned. We have to
discuss Archipelagic Doctrine.
Archipelago, defined.
Archipelago, such as Philippines, is defined as a
group of islands interconnecting waters and other
natural features so close forming geographic, political
identity historically regarded as such. An archipelago
is a body of water studded with islands that are
interconnected with other natural features.
According to Father Bernas, mao ni ang
Archipelagic Doctrine insofar as the Philippines is
concerned:
● The waters around, in between connecting
the islands of the archipelago regardless of
depth and dimension; they form part of
internal waters of Philippines; they are part of
our archipelago.
That is important because if dili nato i-establish,
pwede muagi-agi ang ubang states. That is why we
need to define what archipelago is.
Q: Unsay pwede mahimo within sa archipelago,
part sa territory?
A: Apparently, our Constitution, consider land
archipelago, within tubig dira part sa atong territory.
The limits of Archipelagic Doctrine are as follows:
that the Philippines claims the waters around
and between connecting islands of
archipelago as part of its internal waters
irrespective of their depth and dimension; and
another important Archipelagic Doctrine is
the baseline method to be used which
delineates the Territorial Sea.
So, dapat kabalo pud ta kung unsa sa mga linya ana
kelangan nato i-plot na sulod sa archipelago; pag
sulod, part sa atong territory, dili pwede hilabtan by
any other states.
Archipelagic waters are enclosed by archipelagic
baselines regardless of their depth and distance; its
waters formed part of the territory of the Philippines.
Q: So, what are these baselines anyway?
A: These are the lines drawn along the low water
group of islands, which marks the internal waters and
beginning of Territorial Sea.
Remember katong line ganina sa drawing? Darker
blue sa sulod, lighter blue outside. Katong inside,
mao to atong ma-consider as archipelagic waters,
outside pwede na sya ma-consider as Territorial Sea,
Contiguous Zone or EEZ.
60
Q: Kinsa ba ang mag set, unsa ba ang basis?
A: It is the baseline; so, importante ang baseline; and
we use the straight baseline method. This method
consists of drawing straight lines connecting
appropriate points on the coast departing to any
appreciable extent from the general direction of the
coast. Baselines divide internal waters from the
territorial waters of an archipelago. So, we use this
method.
All of the waters within the baseline are considered
internal waters, archipelagic waters and thereafter,
outside the baseline 12 nautical miles, consider pa
na sya as Territorial Sea; thereafter, naa pa nay
musunod, Contiguous Zone and EEZ.
BASELINE METHOD
Now, there are several methods of determining the
baseline. Naga change ni sya na balaod kay naga
change pud ang configuration. Later on, naay mga
bato, naay island na musulpot; naay updating of
these outermost points.
RA 3046, this was the first law that defined the
baselines of the Territorial Sea in 1961. Does this law
provide baselines? Yes. Makita ninyo sa mga
baselines na naay mga degrees. Kana sya mga
coordinates, kanang mga lines gipang connect based
on the law.
Pag connect ana nila makabuhat na og figure sa
Philippines. Mao na sya ang consist sa area na
mahulog sa sulod sa archipelago.
Later on, gi-update ni sya, mao ni sya ang first law na
nag-establish sa Straight Baseline Method.
Later on, gi-update thru RA 5446 amending the old
law, and in this law, the provision is that the definition
of the baseline of the Philippines has the stop
prejudice the territory of Sabah—outside na ni sa
archipelago using this baseline method; but, we are
insisting this is part of our territory, situated North
Borneo over which the Philippines acquired dominion
over sovereignty.
Another Baseline Law is RA 9522, which amended
the earlier 2 laws. This law provides baseline around
the archipelago for the regime of islands outside
archipelago.
So, naa tay salient provisions just like the earlier law
na gi-amend aning RA 9522, naay recognition, nay
mga areas na dili mahulog sa sulod sa atong
baseline but considered part of our territory: Kalyaan
Island Group under PD 1596, The Scarborough
Shoal.
Naga claim ta na this is part of our territory. Kaning
Scarborough Shoal, gina-baboy na ni karon sa mga
countries dira.
But, we are claiming this as part of our territory, and
therefore, beyond the reach of certain states. The law
affirms the republic has dominion sovereignty and
jurisdiction over all national territory as defined in the
Constitution without limitation.
This law, which fixed, updated the baselines of the
country also made mention of certain areas which we
are also claiming territory.
QUIZ ANSWERS:
1. In Republic vs. Provincial Government of
Palawan, the Supreme Court did not apply the
Federal Paramountcy Doctrine in resolving.
● Yes, it did not apply that doctrine simply
because it was not applicable.
2. Under the UNCLOS, the sovereignty of an
archipelagic state extends to an adjacent belt of
sea described as the territorial sea.
● Yes, the territorial sea is still part, it is
recognized by the UNCLOS where unsa siya,
its part of the maritime zones na naga
exercise gihapon ang state ug sovereignty
over even if its outside the baselines, kadtong
12 nautical miles outside the baselines, we
exercise sovereignty within that belt of sea,
that territorial sea. It's in the name of the
territorial sea, so it extends to that, so this is
true.
61

3. Under the UNCLOS, every state has the right to
establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a
limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured
from the coastline.
● This is false, because we measure the 12
nautical miles not from the coastline, but
rather from the baseline.
4. States do not acquire or lose territory by
executing multilateral treaties on the regulations
of sea-use rights or enacting statutes to comply
with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones
and continental shelves.
● This is true, no? Okay, so the Magallona vs.
Ermita, which we will discuss tonight.
5. The baselines of the Philippine archipelago,
which are determined using the straight baseline
method, divide its internal waters from its
territorial sea.
● Yes, this is true.
6. RA 9522, or the current Philippine Baselines
Law does not reduce Philippine maritime territory
and the reach of the Philippines' sovereign
power.
· Yes, it does not, so this is true. Magallona vs.
Ermita.
7. Baselines are statutory mechanisms for
UNCLOS States parties to delimit with precision
the extent of their territories, maritime zones, and
continental shelves.
● This is false, because walay apil diri ang
territory, only maritime zones and continental
shelves are delimited by baseline laws. These
laws have nothing to do with the
establishment of territory.
8. The contiguous zone is a zone over which the
coastal state may exercise control necessary to
prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal,
immigration or sanitary laws and regulations
within its territory or territorial sea. It is
contiguous to the territorial sea and extends up
to 12 nautical miles from the baselines.
● so this is false because it-- 12 nautical miles
from the territorial sea, no?
9. The contiguous zone is outside the territorial
sea.
· So you measure the 12 nautical miles from
the territorial sea, not from the baseline
kanang imong gina measure from the
baseline, 12 nautical miles, mao na ang
territorial sea. After the territorial sea, is the
contiguous zone which is 12 nautical miles
from the territorial sea. So, this is false.
So, this is part of the discussion on the Archipelagic
Doctrine, gi discuss na nato tong mga previous laws,
RA 3046, if you read these laws, makita ninyo about
the provisions or kanang mga kuan, mga
coordinates. So eventually, gina-unsa siya, gina-
update by the subsequent laws amending them.
Sunod kay RA 5446, and also in these laws, makita
nimo ang municipal claim or ang local claim over
territories na gina-assert nato ang atoang mga claim
over them. Just because we’re establishing the
baselines, does not mean that we are relinquishing
our claim over certain areas na outside these
baselines.
So, makita nimo sa RA 5446, na kining Sabah, North
Borneo, kani, gina-assert nato in this law na we still
ahh, these are still part of our territory.
Our current baseline law is RA 9522, amending the
previous baseline laws and salient provision there is.
The baselines of the following areas over which the
Philippines requires the exercise of sovereignty shall
be determined by the regime of islands na part sila.
We claim also these islands as part of our territory.
KIG- Kalayaan Island Group, and the Scarborough
Shoal. Unfortunately, atoa man gud territorial claims,
as we will discuss later, these are claims.
Meaning, naa puy other states na naga claim sa
ilaha. So they remain to be claims, until there is a
definite settlement before the appropriate tribunal, so
that is why we are insisting, we are claiming still, na
part ni sila sa atoang territory. So, mao to siya.
62

RA 9522, this is the current baseline law, so
basahon ninyo ni nga balaura, makita ninyo atong
mga, what is this, mga coordinates na pag iconnect
connect nimo, maka form ug kadto na mga line, ahh,
kining coastline, surrounding the Philippine
Archipelago and within that.
Archipelagic waters
Territorial sea - within the archipelago and outside
that, kadtong 12 nautical miles from the baseline.
Contiguous zone - 12 nautical miles from the
territorial sea,
EEZ or the Exclusive Economic Zone - which is
200 nautical miles from the baseline.
So importante na madetermine nato ning base--now
these baseline laws are united by states. Including
the Philippines, consistent with the provisions of
treaties, example no, the UNCLOS nga naga
establish aning maritime zones.
So by passing these laws, we are complying with the
obligation in the treaty, nga ginameasure nato, gina
acknowledge nato nga naa ni nga mga maritime
zones, gina acknowledge pud nato nga we will
measure them, and naa ni mga correlative
obligations, and rights, within such maritime zones.
So when the Congress passed this RA 9522, it did
not create a territory that was not existing then. All it
did was to comply with our obligations under the
UNCLOS. We established these baselines para ma-
determine ang atoang maritime zones.
MAGALLONA v. ERMITA
42 SCRA 23 (1971)
Gi-challenge karon ang validity sa RA 9522 in the case of
Magallona vs. Ermita.
Among others, it’s argued that the law reduces our
maritime territory and the reach of our sovereign. Violation
of the constitution, in the constitution, we establish there in
Article 1 kung unsa tong National Territory and this law
daw reduced the area that is supposed to be
encompassed within the definition of the national territory
under the constitution. So, unconstitutional.
Also, the law opens the country’s waters, land, ward and
the baseline to maritime passengers by all vessels and
aircrafts and this undermines the Philippine sovereignty
and national security in violation of the constitution.
So mao daw ning effect sa balaod, by establishing these
baselines, we are limiting our territory, we are opening our
waters that are supposed to be ahh, beyond, what is this,
encroachment by other states. Kay part man ni siya sa
atong territory, etc. so mao ning ilang point. This law
limited our territory.
Ruling:
Ana ang Supreme Court, this law is not unconstitutional,
this law is a mere statutory tool, a law, to demarcate
the country’s maritime zones and continental shelf
under the UNCLOS and it did not delimit--delineate
Philippine territory.
Wala man in this law, it did not establish the Philippine
territory itself.
So, first of all, how is territory lost or how is territory
acquired?
The UNCLOS and the baseline laws that are enacted
by parties to this treaty, these instruments do not play
a role in the acquisition or enlargement or diminution
of the territory.
In fact, there are only a limited number of ways by which a
territory may be acquired as accepted under international
law.
Occupation, i-occupy nimo ang area that has not been
occupied, or walay naga claim, you occupy that, etc.
pwede nimo mahimo na as territory.
Accretion, for example, ning buto ang volcano, no? Or
naay whatever, naay landslide, unya nag form sila ug
property ay unsa dira, territory, oh kana, mu expand imong
territory ana.
Cession, na-cede and territory sa isa ka state to another.
Prescription, so in other words, you acquire, you occupy
and you stay in that territory for a period of time and
eventually it becomes yours.
63
However, territory is not acquired or lost by executing
multilateral treaties on the regulation of sea use rights.
Such as, kaning UNCLOS, or enacting statutes to comply
with the treaty’s terms to delimit maritime zones and
continental shells such as the RA 9522. Dili ni siya mode
of acquiring or losing territory.
In other words, kadtong argument no nga nawalaan ta ug
territory, it is cold water against this law.
The UNCLOS has nothing to do with the acquisition or loss
of territory. It only regulates among others, sea use rights
over maritime zones and continental shelves that the
UNCLOS delimits and baseline laws, such as RA 9522,
are enacted by the UNCLOS state parties to mark out
these base points in order to comply with the provisions of
the UNCLOS, to serve as geographic starting points to
measure the breadth of the maritime zones and
continental shelves. Now, these laws are nothing but
statutory mechanisms for UNCLOS state parties to
delimit with precision the extent of the maritime zones
and continental shelves.
So kaning pag establish sa kadtong baselines, no, these
give notice to the rest of the international community of the
scope of the maritime space and some marine areas
within which the parties to that treaty, the UNCLOS,
exercise treaty-based rights.
In other words, ang pag establish nato sa atoang baseline,
no, is consistent with what the UNCLOS has provided, and
we’re establishing it consistent with the obligations and
rights that are provided in the UNCLOS.
This will notify the world na “oh kani ang among baseline,
kani ang amoang territorial sea, kani ang among EEZ, kani
ang among contiguous zone, kani among waters,” and of
course, notice to other states na kani ang amoang
pwedeng maenjoy or pwede pud ninyo maenjoy within
these maritime zones. Mao na na siya basically.
Even under the theory of the Philippine territory embraces
the islands and all the waters within the rectangular area.
(If you can remember, kadtong map sa Philippines, makita
ninyo, naay straight line didto nga murag square or
rectangle whatever, nga naga claim na atoa gihapon to
siya nga territory)
Under the Treaty of Paris and several treaties, ana ang
Supreme Court, nevertheless, even if naa to siya na mga
treaties, no, even if naa to nga linya, the baselines of the
Philippines would still have to be drawn because we are
also a state party to the UNCLOS, and this is the only way
to draw the baselines in conformity with the UNCLOS.
It is still a necessity because we are also part or a state
party to this treaty, we will have to comply with our
obligations and therefore establish our baselines pursuant
to what is provided under that treaty.
Isa pa ka submission: the laws used of the UNCLOS’s
regime of islands framework draw the baselines, they
weaken our territorial claim over certain areas daw na
outside our baselines.
They add that the Kalayaan Island Group and the
Scarborough Shoal’s exclusion to the Philippine
archipelagic baselines results in the loss of 15,000 square
nautical miles of our territorial waters.
However, ana ang Supreme Court, the law optimizes the
location of our base points and in fact increased our total
maritime space by 145,000 square nautical miles.
Also, the law itself negates the argument that our claims
over certain islands or formations outside the baselines
nga gina-relinquish nato.
Because the law itself commits, the law itself states, naga
maintain, we retain our claim over these islands. Section 2
of the law itself commits to the text of the Philippines, our
continued claim over the sovereignty as a jurisdiction over
the Kalayaan Island Group and the Scarborough Shoal.
We do not relinquish, because the law itself states that we
still--so mao ni akong pasabot na drawing, dili siya ma
enlarge. Pag makita ninyo sa drawing ning red na line, so
mao na siya tong gi-mention ganiha na treaty limits.
————
Treaty limits pursuant to the treaty of Paris
Because you drew now the baselines here, gina
exclude daw ni nga area under that same treaty.
The supreme court said NO. The reason why we
drew these baselines because we are a party to the
UNCLOS, we have to establish this as well so that
mahibal-an nato atong rights and obligations within
the maritime zone established by the UNCLOS, so
the dark blue area sulod sa archipelagic waters sulod
sa archipelago in the UNCLOS.
· Territorial sea- the 12 nautical miles from the
baseline
64
 · Contiguous zone- 12 nautical miles from the
territorial sea
· Exclusive economic zone- 200 nautical
miles from the baseline
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) -
30 April 1982
The exclusive economic zone which shall not
extend beyond 200 nautical miles from baselines,
from which the breadth of the territorial sea is
measured, is recognized in the UNCLOS, of which
the Philippines is a signatory. Its concept is that,
although it is not part of the territory, exclusive
economic benefit is reserved for the country.
International treaty which was adopted and signed in
1982, we signed this treaty in 1984. This treaty
replaced the …. Conventions of April 1958 which
concerned the territorial sea, contiguous zone,
continental shore, the high seas, fishing and
conservation … resources and the high seas. This
treaty establishes the maritime zones
Territorial sea, contiguous zone, and the
exclusive economic zone
A. Territorial Sea- provided in the Article 2 section 1
the general provisions. What is the legal status of
territorial sea and as well as with air, space and its
bed and subsoils? Under the UNCLOS it provides
that the sovereignty of a coastal state extends
beyond its land territory and internal waters and in
the case of archipelagic states (the state of
Philippines) its archipelagic waters to an adjacent
bed of sea describe as territorial sea. The UNLCOS
and the state parties of the UNCLOS recognize that
we exercise sovereignty within the territorial sea. In
other words, it is an extension of our territory. Under
the UNCLOS we can exercise absolute sovereignty
within that area, to the exclusion of the state parties.
So the sovereignty we enjoy extends to the airspace
above the territorial sea as well as its bed and
subsoil. Sovereignty is subject under the rules of
international law.
There are still limitations. Absolute sovereignty is
impossible.
Limitation of the territorial sea
Not exceeding 12 nautical miles measured from the
baseline.
Considering that this is our territorial sea, other
countries cannot just enter without permission within
our territorial sea. So the UNCLOS provides for rights
of other state parties that they can do within a
territorial sea.
The right of innocent passage.
Shows that all states about the coastal or land law
enjoy the right of innocent passage to the territorial
sea. The treaty, the UNCLOS recognizes that we
exercise the sovereignty within the territorial sea.
Naay limited rights ang other states when they
traverse the territorial sea.
Innocent passage means .. passage is innocent
so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good
order and security of the coastal state. Such
passage shall take place in conformity with the rules
of the international law. However, a passage can be
considered no longer innocent when:
- There is a threat to the sovereignty
- exercise of practice of a weapon
- any act in collecting information (an act of
propaganda launching or landing on board of
any aircraft)
- fishing activities
(read this)
We exercise sovereignty within that area under the
UNCLOS
B. Contiguous Zone- a zone contiguous, it extends
to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea. Over
which the coastal state may exercise FISC (Fiscal
Immigration Sanitary Custom) laws and regulation
within its territorial sea.
This may not extend beyond 24 nautical miles from
the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial
sea is measured.
65
Q: What can be done by the state within the
contiguous zone?
A: The coastal state may exercise the necessary to
Prevent infringement of its FISC laws and
regulations, and to punish infringement of the above
laws which are committed within its territorial sea.
We retain jurisdiction in so far as violations of FISC
laws are concerned.
As a rule our criminal laws are territorial in nature. So
if you commit the acts within the contiguous zone, as
a rule di naman sya part sa atong territory so di na
nato hilabtan.
However, if an act falls under FISC (Fiscal
immigration customs), we retain jurisdiction to hear
such violations in the local courts within our country.
So this is recognized by the state parties to the
UNCLOS.
We can punish the infringement of the foregoing laws
and regulations if they are committed within the
contiguous zone.
In this zone, the coastal state jurisdiction necessary
including enforcement action in tribunals and local
courts against a foreign vessel that was intercepted
in the contiguous zone while attempting to smuggle
prohibited items.
This is not considered as outside our jurisdiction as
long as it is contiguous zone. This context can
include monitoring activity which can result in armed
violence and weapon import into the state.
EEZ- Dako sya nga zone and dili pa settled ug what
can and can’t be done. That is why we have the
Philippine sea issue. Even before UNCLOS our has
had already a recognition of EEZ such as PD 1599
issued in 1958 where the Philippines recognizes at
least in our local laws we recognize that we have an
eez with telling the world that we have an eez. So
this eez is the zone extending of 200 nautical miles
from the baseline. The PD established as the eez of
the Philippines without prejudice to the right of its
republic without, it shall have and exercise in the eez.
The following: Sovereignty rights (for the purpose of
exploring, exploiting and managing resources, living
or non-living, or the waters adjacent, seabed or the
subsoil for economic exploration and exploitation of
the zone)
Under article 56 of the UNCLOS
The UNCLOS formally recognize the eez and the
state parties rezognize the EEZ too. Under the
UNCLOS It is a maritime zone despite the territorial
sea and the contiguous zone (so the eez is our
exclusive economic zone) so the activities stated in
the UNCLOS is exclusive to us. It should be enjoyed
by the archipelagic state. If you are a state party to
the UNCLOS you respect what can be done within
the EEZ by the state who possesses that EEZ. It also
has jurisdiction as provided by the convention with
regard to protection and conservation of the marine
environment. There is an arbitral award in the law of
the sea tribunal, they have mentioned what other
states can do in the EEZ
IS THE EEZ PART OF PHILIPPINE TERRITORY?
-First 12 nautical miles is part of Philippine territory,
-Outside of the first 12 NM up to the 200-mile limit
are no longer part of Philippine territory; they are
Philippine part of EEZ.
Sovereignty means supreme authority while
sovereign rights is a term used for a collective but
limited set of rights and powers.
Sovereignty is a full right and power of a body, state
over itself without any interference under the
restriction from outside bodies or sources. It
specifically applies to States.
It contains 4 aspects:
a.The right and power over a territory
b.Responsibility and accountability over
population
c.Generation of specific authorities; and
d.Recognition by other sovereign state
66
Sovereign rights is a term used by UNCLOS that
pertain to entitlement or privileges of a state to a
defined area of the sea called the EEZ.
In other words the UNCLOS merely use this term to
collectively represent limited rights over a state over
its EEZ. In other words, (we cannot say nga uy
sovereign area namo ni we can exclude anyone in
the EEZ. Naa tay rights na pwede maenjoy within the
EEZ but as mentioned in the convention, other
States has also rights with regard to our EEZ).
Article 56 of the UNCLOS mentioned that we have
the sovereign rights for the exploration, exploitation,
conservation, management of natural resources.
We are the Philippines and we have the EEZ, so, we
have to insist nga exclusive ni sya to us. Having
sovereign rights does not confer sovereignty. This
also means that base on UNCLOS and EEZ is not a
sovereign territory. So, that is the main distinction.
Now, sa mapa, makita ninyo nga duol kayo ang
Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. (So unsaon
nato na pagreconcile nga naa silay territorial sea og
naa sad silay EEZ og kita pud).
We have recently entered into a treaty between
Indonesia and our country, naa tay maritime
boundary. The two countries who are both parties of
the UNCLOS have overlapping EEZ in the Mindanao
Sea and the Celebes Sea, the southern section of
the Philippines. So we have to reconcile with
Indonesia to come up with the concession about the
overlapping EEZ. This was also concurred by the
Senate.
South China Sea Arbitration Case
The Philippines went to the tribunal established by
the UNCLOS(kung asa ta pwede magpagawas sa
atuang aligut-got) about the violations. So niadto ta
sa UNCLOS kay Nakita nato nga ang mga Chinese
gapanghimo na ug islands, gapanguha na sa natural
resources.
We went there to get a ruling on several issues.
1. We wanted to get a ruling on rights and obligations
in the West Philippine Sea and the effect of the
UNCLOS on the claim of China on their nine-dashed
line. (Historically, they have this mythical line and
within that line that is part of their territory)
2. The Philippines sought a ruling on whether certain
maritime features claimed by both China and the
Philippines are properly characterized as rocks,
islands because this will determine the maritime
zones that they are capable of generating.
3. The Philippines sought ruling on whether or not the
Chinese actions have violated the UNCLOS by
interfering with our sovereign rights and freedom
under the UNCLOS. (How? Fishing activities that
harmed the marine environment)
4. The Philippines sought a ruling on certain actions
taken by China in particular its large scale land
reclamation and construction of artificial islands nga
hapit na macomplete. (In fact naa na silay hotels and
wifi didto karun that unlawfully aggravated the
dispute of the countries)
The position of China is not they are not accepting,
nor they are participating in the proceedings of the
tribunal. (Wala silay pakialam. Whatever the ruling is,
it will not bind the China since they are not a party to
the arbitral proceedings. Even if China is submitting
position papers does not mean that they are taking
jurisdiction of the decision of the proceedings of the
tribunal.)
Aside from the lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal
over the conflict, one of the assertions of China is
kari nga issue is a territorial issue.
Kay amuang ginaclaim, territory ni namo eh.
Therefore, this is already beyond the competence of
the law of the sea tribunal. China did not participate
but did submit position papers. Ana ang China nga
the tribunal cannot rule on this matter since it is our
territory. UNCLOS lang ang imong jurisdiction
therefore the tribunal has no jurisdiction to rule such.
Only the parties that is a member of the UNCLOS.
67
Issue here was whether or not the tribunal has
jurisdiction to rule on this matter.
The tribunal said that it has jurisdiction to rule on the
matter. Both of the Philippines and China are parties
of the convention. The convention does not allow to
exempt itself from the mechanism for the resolution
of the disputes set out in the convention.
So you cannot conveniently take yourself away from
an issue that has been brought to the tribunal
regarding matters of the UNCLOS to which you are a
State party too.
China’s non participation does not deprive the
tribunal of jurisdiction and that this tribunal was
properly constituted.
Does the issue here involve territorial
sovereignty as claimed by China?
Tribunal said that the matter is not about territorial
sovereignty because there is a dispute between the
parties concerning sovereignty over islands as
submitted by China, but it nevertheless held that the
matters submitted to the arbitration do not concern
the matters of sovereignty of China. The tribunal
considered that it could not be to illicitly aside the
sovereignty to address the submissions of the
Philippines. That doing so would not advance the
sovereignty claims. In other words, the tribunal is
saying that we can resolve the issues presented by
the court of the Philippines without ruling on the
sovereignty issue of China.
Let us go to the merits.
The nine-dashed line and China claims to as
historic rights. (Naa ba jud ning nine-dashed line?
Where did you get this?)
Tribunal said that the final text of the convention
gives other state only a limited right of access of the
EEZ and (mao ni akong gimention gaina nga pwede
mahimo sa ubang states under the UNCLOS within
the EEZ of other states. It gives other States a limited
right of access to fisheries within the EEZ. So pwede
ka magshare, only to the extent nga dili ni maharvest
ni State nga iyaha ning EEZ, pwede mag harvest2
pud ning other State. This States outside the EEZ,
they have no right to petroleum or mineral
resources.)
Ang gidetermine sa convention (unsaon man
pagdetermine sa convention) kung nagaexist ba jud
ning nine-dashed line kung wala ka nagsubmit sa
imung legal basis. Historical rights or activities
because you are not participating. So ang basis ra
jud sa tribunal to rule on that nine-dashed line is kung
unsa ang isubmit sa Philippines kay mao ra may
nagsubmit sa position jud.
Tribunal found out that China’s claim to historic
rights were extinguished when China signed the
UNCLOS. When you recognized the UNCLOS, all of
the claims of historical rights were extinguished since
it is not compatible with the UNCLOS system of
maritime zones.
What is the basis of the China ’s historic rights in
the West Philippine Sea?
Historically, gigamit na ni sa mga Chinese navigators
and fishermen kani nga mga islands. However, the
tribunal found that prior to the convention, the waters
here were part of the high seas. Which vessels from
any States are free to navigate and fish. In other
words, the acts of the Chinese were consistent with
the nature of this islands. They did not exclude any
other state from enjoying. There is no evidence that
China has exclusive control over the waters of the
West Philippine Sea that prevented other states from
exploiting their resources. China cannot claim nga
kini amoa ni historically because ginagamit namo
nang tubig. Yes, pero ginagamit pud ni sa ubang
States. There was no legal basis for China to claim
historic rights to resources in excess of a right
provided for by the convention within the sea areas
falling within the nine-dashed line. (Gibasura)
The rights provided for in line with the convention
within the sea areas falling within the 9-line. So
gibasura in other words sa tribunal tong argument
What about the creatures? Status of the creatures of
the South China Sea? The argument of China here is
68
that there are certain reefs claimed by China as part
of their territory above water at high tide and they
themselves generate their own marital zones.
Therefore, dili ni cya pwede ma claim sa Philippines
as part of the EEZ because China claims this part of
our territory and kani na mag islands na ni they also
have their own maritime zones. So the conclusion
rather states, part of our territory ni and the zones
belong to them.
Ana Ang tribunal, in so far as to the Spratlys Islands,
Ana sila na all of the high tide features in the Spratlys
Islands are rocks that do not generate an exclusive
zone or continental shelves. So the convention
UNCLOS, does not provide for a group of islands,
such as Spratlys Island to generate maritime zones
collectively as a unit. None of the Spratlys Island is
capable of generating, Therefore, extended maritime
zones and therefore kani sila na mga creatures
can/are therefore within the EEZ because they do not
themselves generate maritime zones. So, sulod sila
sa atoang EEZ in other words.
What about the Scarborough Shoal, The
Scarborough Shoal generates an entitlement to a
territorial sea it is above water at high tide, therefore
it has a territorial sea and its surrounding waters do
not form part of the EEZ, and the traditional fishing
rights were not extinguished by the Convention,
although the Tribunal emphasize that it was not
presiding sovereignty over the Scarborough Shoal it
found nevertheless that China violated its duty to
respect to the traditional fishing rights of Philippine
Fishermen by halting access to the Shoal after mate.
Dili mana imohang EEZ nganong ginastop man nimo
ug pangisda ning mga Fishermen sa Philippines.
Ana Ang Tribunal na we are not resolving that this
Scarborough Shoal belongs to the Philippines
because that is already outside its power to do so.
But however, it is saying that since this area
generates an EEZ, so katong mga rights na pwede
ma exercise sa EEZ you can do so, but we cannot
prohibit other countries from enjoying what can be
done within that zone. So by doing that, halting
access to the Shoal is a violation of Convention ni
UNCLOS.
Having found also that mischief reef, the second
Thomas Shoal and the rebank, are submerge in high
tide they form part of the EEZ at continental Shelf of
the Philippines and they did not overlap by any
possible entitlement by China, so therefore, part cya
sa EEZ sa Philippines. So China, you respect what
can be done by the Philippines in that area.
Here, China interfered with Philippine exploration at
the reef bank, so they protect/prohibit Fishing of
Philippine Vessels within our EEZ. Protected and
failed to prevent Chinese Fishermen from Fishing
within the EEZ, etc . And even constructed
installations and artificial hindrance. All of these
activities show that it has violated the Philippines
sovereign rights in respect to its EEZ and continental
shelves kato na area na gi declare na EEZ sa
Philippines.
So, kadto pa jud gi destroy pa nila Ang nature, kani
jud China noh tanan na Lang churro kaonon pati Ang
kwaknet tan.awa karon online class nata tungod nila.
Anyway, there is an obligation noh China has
violated its obligation to preserve and protect the ring
environment with respect to fragile ecosystem that is
inhabited by endangered species. Murag mao jud
nang role. Anyway, Chinese Fishermen have
engaged/endangered sea turtles, corals, etc. kani na
mga resources and Chinese Authorities were aware
of this activities. So therefore the Tribunal states you
have violated the Convention. Ana Ang China, so
what? The Tribunal considered the Philippines
request for declaration that moving forward from this,
China shall respect the rights and freedom of the
Philippines and comply with its duties under the
Convention.
In this respect, the Tribunal noted that both the
Philippines and China have repeatedly accepted the
Convention and general obligations of good faith
defined and regulated. In other words, the Tribunal
states na comply nalang mo sa inyohang obligations
in the UNCLOS. Dili namo nah ma enforce Kai wala
mi police, military to enforce this decision. Comply
with your obligations in good faith. The root of
69
dispute is not the intention of China to violate the
EEZ of the Philippines but rather the different
interpretations or claims. Chinese claiming this part
of their territory. Philippines is saying na EEZ namo
kani cya. And the Tribunal recall that it is the
fundamental principle of international law that
mandates its rule, so naai benefit of the doubts
gihatag sa China and the award therefore shall be
complied with the parties to the dispute. So comply
with this award China and therefore there was no
further declaration needed to enforce it. In other
words, unsaon man ni nato ning awards? Wala man
diay magnuclear sa China Kung e.violate nila Ang
UNCLOS.
In other words, mag ampo nalang ta Kai Lord na
ifollow ni China Ang UNCLOS because the Tribunal
itself cannot enforce it. Nevertheless, we have this
victory in the Tribunal and this decision is being used
by certain stage to assert the certain claim over
Chinese intrusions or their territory as well Kai Dili
nalang man kita ang naay issue against China. So
mao to noh, pwede nato ni cya gamiton among other
things to pressure China, ETC mag corpo corpo ta
with other states that have certain claims also against
China na naa nai settled ruling regarding this area,
you are a signatory to this Convention, comply with
your obligations, ETC.
So, mao na cya, is it a hollow victory in a way? Yes.
But we can still use this victory to assert our rights
and China’s obligation under the UNCLOS through
other means, diplomatic ways. Of course,
e.recognize nato na dili lang man pud ang China naai
problem, kita pud naa pud tai problema sa atoang
mga territorial claims. There is this article of Bautista
entitled “The Philippines duty limits and territorial
water claiming international law.”
Unsa may root sa problem ani? The position of the
Philippines, as so far as its territory is concern, na
remember ninyo tong map ganina, katong red na
line, katong Treaty limits. Ang position ani sa
Philippines sa atoang territory, we still maintain this
claim. The limits of its national territory are the
boundaries laid down in the Treaty of Paris, which
heeded Philippines from Spain to US and that katong
lines to be establish in the treaty of Paris, all that is
within (sulod ato na Linya) are part of the territorial
waters of the Philippines. However, this position was
contested in the international convention and run
against rules in the law of the Sea, the UNCLOS,
which the Philippines signed and notified. Dili lang d
ai kita Ang naai issue with the UNCLOS, China. Ay
dili lang d ai China Ang naai issue, naa pud d ai tah.
Kai naa tai gina.claim pud na territory under earlier
treaties, the treaty of Paris, na part cya sa atong
territorial waters.
So mao ni atong map noh, makita ninyo ning pula na
line, kani cya, mao ning gi.established sa Treaty of
Paris and we are claiming na kani cya, this is part of
our territory, so kani cla internal waters nato ni tanan.
Internal waters ni to the exclusion of others states.
So bantog gina.assert pud cya sa other states that
we cannot do that Philippines noh, because signatory
tah sa UNCLOS, etc., so we recognize baselines,
etc, EEZ.
In essence, our claim is historic rights pud, oh dba,
mura pud ta ug China. Claim to historic rights of title
over its maritime and territorial boundaries, several
sources sa atong Historic rights, Treaty of Paris,
there was no protest, after or simultaneous
ratification of this Treaty with respect to the exercise
of the sovereignty by the US over all the land and
sea territory embraced in the Treaty. So when we
took over after the US, katong area na covered by
the Treaty of Paris, part jud to cya sa atoang territory.
Wala may ni contest ana. We have, kani atong claim,
has been open and public, as well as continuous and
peaceful.
Second, our claim has already been, we already
gave notice to the world that we are claiming this
area, to be part of our territorial sea, by way of a
note/verbal to the Secretary of the UN in 1955
asserting the coal waters around the bin and
connecting the islands of the blah, embraced in the
lines of the Treaty of Paris are considered maritime
territorial waters of the Philippines.
Third, the present configuration of the Philippine
archipelago clearly indicate the limits, clearly
70
indicated in the rectangular box has already, is
indicated also in almost all known maps of the
Philippines. And did you know? When we signed the
UNCLOS in 1984, we had a reservation. Yes, with
reservation. 1984 submitted a declaration which
stated among others, its signature shall not in any
manner affect the sovereign rights of the
Philippines, as a successor of the US under an
arising of the colonial treaties that may find its
territory. Oh dba? Ni.pirma tah ug ni agree tah sa
UNCLOS but with a reservation. Asa man nah makita
sir? Naa nah, tan.awa ninyo Ang website sa UN,
makita man ninyo didto Ang mga
declarations/reservations pud sa uban countries.
Further, the Philippines declared in the same
instrument, the signing of this shall not in any manner
impair or prejudice sovereign rights of the Philippines
under the arising of the constitution. So, unsa man
jud? Tan.awon nimo, mao ni Ang atoang reservation
when we signed the UNCLOS. Oh daghan ni kaayo,
8 kabuok. Basaha ninyo nah. However, when we
signed the Treaty, naa pud tai obligation. It must be
remembered that in international law, once, each
state expresses its consent to be bound by
international undertaking it must comply with its
obligations arising from that undertaking in good
faith. That is the concept/principle of pacta sunt
servanda. That every treaty enforced is binding upon
the parties and must be performed by them in good
faith.
So when we signed that Treaty, the UNCLOS, we
know of our obligations and we have to comply with
such obligation. So the Philippine government is
obliged to observe this rule, this negates commitment
to the UNCLOS. In fact, the other states may
demand Philippines must comply with its obligations.
So what should be done? Kai naa may inconsistency,
naa nai atong gina.claim na territory under the Treaty
of Paris pero signatory tah ni UNCLOS, na naga
establish sa maritime zones, na atong gipang
mention earlier.
So what should be done? There should be a
reformed agenda, in our jurisdiction, in our country.
The Philippines must take the necessary lethal
regulatory administrative reforms and not amend or
withdraw existing or legal or administrative domestic
issuances with a view towards harmonization of its
domestic legal favor with customary and convention
international. In other words, we have to harmonize
our local law and our obligations with other states.
Pursuant to our Treaties na gipang pirmahan, we
have to harmonize them. There must be a seriously
commit, the Philippines must seriously commit a
whole of government approach towards
implementation of the UNCLOS. So Kai nasugdan
naman nato ni, by the R.A. 9522, when we establish
the baseline laws/baselines. So, harmonization of
laws with international legal order.So, kato cya noh,
nganong problem area man cya? Because its still a
continuing issue. So, daghan pa d ai tag issues
outside the Philippines and inside the Philippines,
including kaning matters on territory.
2. PEOPLE
· A state cannot exist without People.
·
Q: What are People?
People - inhabitants of the state, a number of which
is capable for self-sufficiency and self-defense and it
must be for both sexes or perpetuity.
People can be classified as inhabitants (nagpuyo
didto mismo), Citizens, and Electors.
A. INHABITANTS
· These are the people na inhabit sa katong
land mass territory regardless of their
citizenship. And in the constitution, we
recognize inhabitants are those who reside
actually or permanently in a given place or
who have their domicile.
The Constitution expressly recognizes the presence
of inhabitants and it also provides general provisions
on what can be enjoyed by the inhabitants of the
Philippines, for example:
Art. II Section 15. “The
State shall protect and
promote the right to health
of the people and instill 71
health consciousness
among them.”
Art. II Section 16. “The The Supreme Court said that under our
State shall protect and We also have Constitution, the same is declared a popular right of
advance the right of the inhabitants who we the people and, of course, indisputably it equally
people to a balanced and refer to as Natural applies to both citizens and foreigners in this
healthful ecology in accord and Juridical country.
with the rhythm and Persons, and these
inhabitants also enjoy The issue here is the issuance of a warrant, not by
rights within the the court, but by an executive body. [READ THIS
Philippines. CASE]
Regardless of your
citizenship, if you are
an inhabitant, you enjoy certain rights. Example:
B. CITIZENS
Article III, The Bill of Rights. This is applicable to
inhabitants of the Philippines.
- Citizens are those, who under the
Section 2. “The right of the people to be secure in constitution and laws, are members of
their persons, houses, papers, and effects against the political community owing
unreasonable searches and seizures” allegiance and being entitled to
enjoyment of full civil rights.
- Citizens have established or
submitted themselves to the dominion
of a government for the promotion of
the general welfare.

- The electorate, the people who can vote.

Who are the citizens of the Philippines? Article IV,

This is very relevant now because apparently, we Section 1:
now have issuances that allow the police and military
to come after those who are infected with COVID, so 1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines
we have a right against that. Even if you are a at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
foreigner, as a rule, you are protected by the Bill of 2. Those whose fathers or mothers are
Rights. citizens of the Philippines;
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
QUA CHEE GAN VS. DEPORTATION BOARD
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
9 SCRA 27 (1963)
and
We have this alien sought to be deported from the 4. Those who are naturalized in
Philippines where the Supreme Court held that he accordance with law.
had a right under Art. III Section 1 where, as a rule,
you cannot be arrested without a warrant unless 3. SOVEREIGNTY
you fall under the exceptions. There must be an
arrest warrant issued by a judge after finding What is Sovereignty?
probable cause. So you cannot be arbitrarily - Supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a
arrested without a warrant and you enjoy that right state by which that state is governed.
as an inhabitant of the Philippines. - Right to exercise the functions of a state to the
exclusion of any other state.
72
- It is referred to as imperium: The state’s authority to
govern. It includes passing laws, governing its
territory, maintaining peace and order over it, and
defending it against foreign invasion.
- It implies supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power
by which any state is governed and which resides
within itself whether residing in a single individual, a
number of individuals, or a whole body of the people.
Q: In the Philippines, where does Sovereignty
reside?
- Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them. (Art. II,
Section 1)
- Very important: The power exercised by our
leaders are enjoyed by them because the people
themselves allow them to enjoy the same, to exercise
such powers. Our Congressmen, Senators, and other
elected officials are exercising their powers because
we voted for them and therefore they should act in
the interest of the people. The power given to them is
by mere delegation, it is given to them as a trust
because sovereignty does not reside in government,
it does not reside in our officials, it resides in the
people and when the people exercise, through
extreme measures, this power of sovereignty it can
result to another People Power. The constitution
recognizes that sovereignty is in the people, and all
government authority emanates from the people, not
the other way around.
AUTO-LIMITATION/ SELF-LIMITATION
- It is a doctrine where the Philippines adheres to the
principles of international law as a limitation to the
exercise of its sovereignty.
So we mentioned earlier the general rule that
sovereignty is absolute to the exclusion of everyone.
Nevertheless, we, under our constitution, recognize
that we cannot remain to be a state without limiting,
to a certain extent, our sovereignty. And that is
encapsulated in:
Art. II, Section 2
“Section 2. The Philippines
renounces war as an instrument
of national policy, adopts the
generally accepted principles
of international law as part of
So, we are recognizing that we have obligations
established by generally accepted principles of
international law, and these obligations form part of
our laws as well. In other words, if there are
limitations imposed under generally accepted
principle of international law, we recognize that
limitation, therefore, we are saying that our
sovereignty is not absolute because we recognize
such limitations.
PEOPLE V. GOZO
53 SCRA 476 (1973)
The issue here is whether local ordinances are binding in
naval bases in the Philippines. Take note of this case
vis-à-vis the Saguisag Vs. Ochoa Case (EDCA). There is
a discussion that is not consistent anent the naval bases.
Anyway, Auto- limitation was defined here as the
property of a state-force due to which it has the exclusive
capacity of legal self-determination and self-restriction.
As a state is sovereign, as a state is absolute, only the
state can limit itself. A state then, if it chooses to, may
refrain from the exercise of what otherwise is illimitable
competence. There is at the most diminution of
jurisdictional rights, not its disappearance. The state’s
laws may as to some persons found within its territory no
longer control. It does not mean that we are relinquishing
all of our sovereignty over such, we are only limiting it.
it by no means follows that such areas become
impressed with an alien character. They retain their
status as native soil. They are still subject to its authority.
Its jurisdiction may be diminished, but it does not
disappear.
TAÑADA V. ANGARA,
338 PHIL. 546, 593 (1997)
When we joined the WTO, we had concessions that we
made, opening our trade to the world. The argument here
is that it will defeat the principle of Filipino-first policy.
By joining this WTO, did we relinquish our sovereignty?
No.
When the Philippines joined the UN as one of its 51
charter members it consented to restricting its
sovereign rights under the concept of auto-limitation.
73
In fact, we have entered into other several international
pacts and treaties that involve limitations on our
sovereignty. The Philippines has effectively agreed to
limit the exercise of its sovereign powers, among
others, taxation, imminent domain and police power,
when we entered into such treaties. It does not mean
that we are relinquishing, again, totally our
sovereignty. It's just that we recognize that by limiting
to a certain extent our exercise of sovereignty in these
aspects, say for example sa economy, we can get better
benefits from other states.
The underlying consideration is in this partial
surrender of sovereignty is the reciprocal commitment
of the other contracting states in granting the same
privilege and immunities to the Philippines, its
officials and its citizens.
Unsa ning reason nganong nagaallow ta aning world trade
organization? So that naa pud tay maenjoy na benefit! So
naa pud related to our discussion on sovereignty is the
concept of incorporation and transformation. This
pertain to the adoption of international law into domestic
law.
How can international law be made part of the philippine
domestic law? How can these international laws form part
of our laws? There are two ways: incorporation or
transformation.
Incorporation - by mere constitutional declaration,
international law is automatically deemed to have the force
of domestic law.
We adopt the incorporation method under article 2
section 2. "The Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principle of international law, as part of the law of the
land." In other words, by this declaration, kung naa may
generally accepted principle of international law, it is
automatically part of the law the land. Automatically
incorporated under the incorporation method. So
international law, generally principle of international law,
now part of domestic law because it is automatically
incorporated.
Examples:
Kaning mga cases, so in (meyoth) v director, the generally
accepted principle of international law, that katung mga
foreign nationals may not be indefinitely kept in detention.
Marcos v Manglapuz,: recognizes the right to return to
one’s country, generally accepted principle of international
law.
Corona v Jalandoni: the principle of setting up military
tribunals against war criminals
Reyes v Bagatsing: the principle that we should protect
diplomatic premises. The state is under a duty to do so
against any intrusion or damage.
Tanada v secretary: Pacta sunt servanda, meaning,
international agreements must be performed in good faith.
This is a generally accepted principle of international law.
When we enter into a treaty we have to comply to the
treaty in good faith.
Magalona v Ermita: the right of innocent passage,
automatically incorporated in the purpose of philippine law
because it is a generally accepted principle of international
law.
Another way to make international law into a domestic law,
is called:
Transformation - needs positive acts by the state. It
requires that an international law be transformed into a
domestic law through a constitutional mechanism, such as
local legislation. For instance, treaty. For example no,
there is this principle of international law that is not
generally accepted. So gusto nato sya himuog domestic
law para ma applicable sa atoa, kay dili man sya
automatically mahulog sa incorporation kay di man sya
generally accepted. So we can adopt that international law
principle of principle or law by way of transforming it into a
local legislation. We can make it into a treaty, or we can
make a local legislation which is consistent with the
international law that we want to adopt. So pwede nato na
himuon na naay himuon ang state to transform that
international law into a domestic law.
So example: treaties, conventional, international, must go
to a process provided, prescribed in the constitution. Unsa
man ni nga process? Katong it's a long process but it
includes ratification by the executive and of course,
concurrence by the senate. So isa na sa mga mechanisms
to transform international law into domestic law.
Bar Q:
What do you understand about the doctrine of
incorporation?
74
So, doctrine of incorporation means that rules of
international law form part of the law of the land and no
legislative action is required to make them applicable to a
country.
This can be found in article 2 section 2, which states that
the Philippines adopt to the generally accepted principles
of international laws as part of the law of the land.
Balik ta sa Tanada v Angara, in the WTO Issue:
So the court recognized that the sovereignty has been
deemed absolute and all encompassing on the domestic
level. It is however subject to restrictions and limitations
voluntarily agreed to by the Philippines, expressly or
impliedly as a member of the family of nations. Again, the
constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation on the
country from the rest of the world.
So, Auto-limitation is recognized by the constitution
under ARt. 2, SEction 2 by forming these generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law
of the land. By this doctrine, the country is bound by
generally accepted principles of international law which are
considered to be automatically part of our own law. and
one of which is Pacta Sunt Servanda rule that international
agreements must be performed in good faith.
Actually, engagement is not a mere moral obligation but it
creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. And by
their inherent nature, when we enter into a treaty, unsa ba
nang treaty, papel ra ba na?
Treaties- we have to comply with the obligations in
said treaties in good faith and these treaties really, by
their existence, they limit or restrict the absoluteness
of sovereignty. The fact that we recognize obligations in
said treaty, we are actually limiting our sovereignty, which
is otherwise absolute. By voluntary acts, nations may
surrender some aspects of their state power in
exchange for greater benefits, granted by or derived
from a convention or pact, such as what happened here.
Sovereignty, therefore the state cannot in fact in reality be
considered absolute. Certain restrictions entered into the
picture, which are limitations imposed by the very nature of
the membership, of our membership in a family of nations
and limitations imposed by treaty stipulations.
No nations can build its destiny alone. Char. The age of
self-sufficient nationalism is over. The age of
interdependency is here.
Bayan v. Zamora and the issue of the validity of the VFA.
So kani sya, initial entry of foreign troops. Unsa ba ang
mechanism under the constitution that would allow their
entry into the country? What is the VFA?
It is an agreement entered into through a treaty and it
defines the treatment of the US troops and personnel
visiting the philippines, guidelines to govern such visits,
and defines the rights of the US and Philippine
government on the matter of criminal jurisdiction, etc.
So naay mga ingani na provisions in the VFA. Is it
unconstitutional? No.
Because when it was adopted and complied with the
provisions of the constitution.
Now what are the salient provisions in the constitution that
deal with foreign military troops or bases?
Art. 7 section 21 that if we enter into a treaty or
international agreement, it will only be valid and effective if
it is concurred in by at least 2/3 of all the members of the
Senate. So naay Senate concurrence when we talk about
a treaty of international agreement for it to be valid. Now
remember the voting: 2/3 of all the members so how many
members of the Senate are there? There are 24, so dapat
at least 2/3 of 24 should concur with the treaty. So that is
16/24 for it to be valid.
Another provision more specific on the entry of foreign
troops and bases is Art. 18 Sec. 25. Foreign military
bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the
Philippines. So that is the general rule. Bawal mo musulod
sa country except pwede diay under a treaty duly
concurred in by the Senate. So pwede sila musulod only
by way of a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate. So,
since it requires that entry shall in a treaty, related sa
requirement is Senate concurrence. So art. 7 Sec. 21 is
involved, which is the voting requirement. Art, 18 Sec. 25
specifically deals with foreign military base troops, which
can only be allowed by virtue of a treaty duly concurred in
by the Senate.
And so, for them to be allowed to enter the Ph, what are
the requirements?
1. there must be a treaty.
2. must be duly concurred by the Senate.
3. it must be recognized also in the treaty by the other
contracting state.
now are there requirements all present in the adoption of
the VFA?
75

YES. There is no dispute as to the presence of the first
two. unsa ba tong first two:
-Treaty - there is a treaty for the VFA
-concurrence of the senate - it was acquired in this case.
What about the third requirement? Before we go to the
third requirement, remember ha: ang gibutang, 2/3 of all
the member of the Senate. Wala sya gibutang didto sa
Constitution na "All members." "2/3 of all". So wala, even if
absent ka sa country, you have to be included in the
counting for the 2/3 figure. So without a doubt, 2/3 of this
figure. Not less than 16 members favorably acting on the
proposal is an unquestionable compliance with the
requisite number of votes required for a treaty. So the fact
that here were only 23 senators will not alter in any
significant way the circumstance that more that 2/3 of that
number shall concur. So kato. 2/3 of all the members of
the Senate.
Ang nahitabo man gud diri sa third requirement is that the
US senate has not itself concurred with the treaty in the
same way na niconcurr ta sa kaning VFA.
Ana ang Supreme Court, there is no need to submit the
VFA to the US Senate, because the US already
recognized it as a treaty and it also recognized its
obligations under the VFA.
Since explicitly na recognized naman cya by the US. It is
tantamount to a recognition by the other state na naa sila'y
obligations under the VFA.
BAYAN v ROMULO
It talks about the Republic of the Philippines and US Non-surrender
agreement. So there are provisions here that protect nationals of the US
and PH. For example, naay US national nag violate ug mga laws, kaning
agreement naay mga conditions didto before nimo siya pwede i-extradite
to face such charges. Naa'y mutual protection between the US and PH sa
ilang mga citizens or in certain conditions. So, we entered into such an
agreement by way of an exchange of notes; our country through the DFA
to Secretary Ople and representative of the US.
The Agreement aims to protect what refers to and defines as persons of
the PH and the US from frivolous and harassment suits. Now on the other
hand, we also are artist to the Rome Statute. We did not ratify yet during
this case. We have not subjected the Rome Statute to its complete
concurrence process but we are signatories to the Rome Statute. And
one of the obligations is that if mahulog ka didto sa mga provisions that
are penalized by the Statute and are within the jurisdiction of the ICC,
naay obligation ang state to present you to the ICC.
Karon ang argument is that isa, ang isa sa challenges diri against the RP-
US Non-Surrender Agreement;
First, it was not entered into by way of a treaty. This is an international
agreement, it should be by way of a treaty and ang gihimo ninyo ky
international exchange of notes, and therefore void siya.
Number 2, this agreement contradicts our obligation under the ROME
Statute. That if ever naay foreign national in the PH, a US national nag
violate sa provision sa ROME statute, naay tay obligation to bring that
person to the ICC. but because of this RP-US Non-Surrender agreement
naay conditions before nato to siya mapaadto sa ICC, so naa nay
inconsistency.
Is the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement valid?
YES, this was entered into by way of an exchange of notes. And
this is in category of an intergovernmental agreement which is an
internationally accepted form of international agreement. So, it is as
defined in the case, it is a record of routine agreement that has
many similarities with private law contracts. So pwede ka mu-enter
into such agreements not always by way of a treaty.
In another perspective, the exchange of notes and executive agreements
have been interchangeably used. Isn't it concurrence required when we
enter into an exchange of notes and executive agreement? NO,
concurrence is required if there is only a treaty.
International agreement, will in the form of one, treaties that require
legislative concurrence after ratification or executive agreements that are
similar to treaties except that they do not required legislative concurrence
and are usually less formal and deem will narrower range of subjects.
Here, when the RP-US Non-Surrender Agreement entered into, it was not
by way of a treaty so no need for a senate concurrence kay di man siya
treaty.
Should it be in a treaty? Is it required to be in a treaty?
Ana ang Supreme Court, NO, there is no hard and fast rule on the
propriety of entering regulating subject into a treaty. There is only one
instance in the Constitution na required siya to be in a treaty but in all
other international agreements wala baya na ingon sa Constitution na
dapat treaty ni siya.
The primary consideration in the choice of the form of the agreement is
the intent of the parties and the desire to craft an international agreement
in the form that they wish to further their respective interests. There is
only, as I said earlier, there is only one provision that requires an
international agreement to be in a treaty. That is when it deals with
the initial entry of foreign military bases, troops, and facilities into
the PH. Kana lng cya ang required in the Constitution that requires such
an agreement to be in a treaty.
In all other international agreements, if gusto ta mu-enter into, walay
requirement na treaty siya. Save for that one. So, for the Executive,
besides to enter into an agreement not by way of a treaty, it can be
done.
So need to be labor na validity of this agreement just because it was not
concurred in by the Senate, because in the first place there concurrence
is not required because it is not a treaty.
Oh kani daw abdicated daw our sovereignty by bargaining away the
jurisdiction of the ICC under the ROME Statute to prosecute US national,
76
kay gina protektahan na daw nato when in fact under that statute we
have an obligation. Ana ang Supreme Court, there is in the same
statute the concept of complementarity. In fact, this RP-US
agreement is in affirmance and conformance on the PH national
criminal jurisdiction.
The concept of complementarity, meaning that national criminal
jurisdiction being primary is always the responsibility and is within
the prerogative of the country, the state to either to prosecute this
individuals or to give them to the ICC. Complementary ang jurisdiction,
pwede kita ang mag decide ani na issue, pwede pud nato siya ipasa sa
ICC. Thus, PH decide to try the person of the US under the terms of the
agreement under our national criminal justice system pwede nato siya i
prosecute sa atong country or it may ought not to do so nad submit that
person over the ICC, so walay inconsistencies actually with the Rome
statute. The Rome Statute itself recognizes the concept of
complementarity.
Deutsche Bank vs. CIR
Anyway there is this treaty giving preferential tax rate to
this bank, branches operating in the PH, instead of the
normal corporate tax rate, naa silay 10 percent branch
profit remittance tax, so lesser ang ilang tax na gina pay.
Well there is a certain branch of Deutsche Bank, na ang
gihimo ky sobra ilang gi bayad na tax because ang ilang
gigamit is katong regular tax rate. So, karon na naa diay
treaty nag claim sila karon ug refund, we overpaid our
taxes and we have a preferential tax treatment under this
RP-Germay tax treaty. So, karon nag claim na siya sa BIR.
Gi-reject karon sa BIR ang ilahang claim ky wala sila nag
follow sa isa ka memorandum order na within a certain
period lang pwede i-claim, nilapas mo sa period and
therefore wala na inyong claim.
So, naabot na karon ang issue karon sa CTA (Court of Tax
Appeals), ang CTA ky nag side with the BIR and ultimately
it went to the Supreme Court. And ana ang SC by virtue of
this treaty we are bound to extend to a branch in the PH
remitting to its head office in Germany a benefit of a
preferential rate equivalent to 10 percent branch profit
remittance tax of this treaty, that is the essence of this RP-
Germany Tax treaty.
And since we are part of that treaty, pacta sunt servanda
applies, meaning we have to comply with our obligations in
that treaty in good faith. On the part of the states that
enter into agreement so that to comply. The Deutsche
Bank here, the preferential tax, every treaty enforce is
binding upon the parties and obligations under the treaty
must be performed by them in good faith. More
importantly, treaties have the force and effect of the law in
this country.
Now, what is the function of tax treaties, to reconcile the
national fiscal legislation of the contracting parties and in
turn and help taxpayers avoid simultaneous tax. It is to
ease, minimize the harshness of international juridical
double taxation. So karon, naay tax treaty na gina enjoy
and Deutsche Bank, preferential tax rate.
As between the revenue memorandum order, nag
prescribe ug way for you to claim that overpayment, and
versus this treaty, ky gideny sa BIR ang claim because wla
sila nag comply sa RMO.
Ana ang SC it should be the treaty, there is not in the
RMO which would indicate a deprivation of entitlement
to this tax treaty for failure to comply with the 15 day
period. The outright denial of this tax treaty relief is not in
harmony with the objective of the states who entered into
that treaty. Bearing in mind the rational or reason of tax
treaties, the period of reapplication of the taxity relief as
provided in RMO should not operate to divest the
entitlement of the relief, as if to constitute a violation of our
duty, a required by good faith in complying with the treaty.
The denial of the availment of the tax relief would impair
the value of the tax treaty. So in other words, dili pwede,
by mere administrative issuance malimit nimo ang
enjoyment sa isa ka party to a treaty sa benefits of that
treaty. The obligation to comply with the treaty shall take
precedence over the objective of the revenue
memorandum order, otherwise there would be negative
effects.
The outright denial of this tax treaty relief or failure to
comply with the period is not in harmony with the
objectives of the states who entered into that treaty.
Bear in mind the reason for tax treaties. The period of re-
application of the tax treaty relief as provided in the RMO
1-2 should not operate to divest entitlement to the relief as
it would cost you to a violation of our duty required by good
faith in complying with that treaty. The denial of the
availment of the tax relief would impair the value of the tax
There is also this issue of international law vs municipal
law.
2 ways in order to make international law part of
domestic or municipal law:
1. Transformation
2. Incorporation
Even though international requires a state to carry out its
internal obligations, the processes used by a state will
vary. It could be legislative, executive, or judiciary. States
also follow different practices in internationalizing treaty
77
norms or incorporating treaties within the legal structure.
So gina follow nato ning automatic incorporation rule, and
the transformation which requires legislation in order to
give treaties domestic effect.
LIM VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
An issue presented there is that:
Is a treaty superior to a municipal or domestic law?
Kung naa bay treaty karon unya naay balaod that is
inconsistent with that treaty, kinsa man karon ang
mangibabaw?
Ana ang Supreme Court, NO. Dili superior ang treaty sa
municipal or domestic law. Why?
Under the Doctrine of incorporation, rules of an
international law are given a standing equal, not superior
to national legislation.
That is why pag basahon nimo tung doctrine of
incorporation, generally accepted principles of international
law form part of the laws of the Philippines. Wala man siya
nag ingon 'forms part of the constitution of the Philippines'.
Forms part of the Law. Meaning, part siya sa law, equal
siya sa municipal/domestic law and the same way if
international law is transformed into domestic law, it is
equivalent to a national, local, municipal law.
Now, there is a view from the perspective of public
international law, a treaty is favored over municipal law
pursuant to the principle of pacta sunt servanda
because we are to comply with our obligations of the treaty
in good faith. So under the public international law view,
superior ang treaty.
However, our constitution espouses an opposing view in
Section 5, Article VIII: The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers:
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide,
final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity
of any treaty, international or executive
agreement, law, presidential decree,
proclamation, order, instruction, ordinance, or
regulation is in question.
Pwede atong courts actually maka nullify ani. In other
words, kung basahon nimo ang provision, same level sila--
treaty, international agreement, law, presidential decree,
they are all in the same boat that can be nullified by our
courts. Therefore, being of equal value, they cannot be
superior. One cannot be better than the other.
The Constitution of the Philippines has clearly provided
that international agreements may be invalidated by
our courts, providing the same in Section 2 of Article VIII
thereof.
In other words, constitution authorizes the nullification
of a treaty not only when it conflicts with fundamental
law but also when it runs counter to an act of
congress. So in other words noh dili jud superior ang
treaty to domestic law.
Is the Balicatan 02-1 unconstitutional?
The Balicatan is not our constitution it is only meant as an
implementations of the provision of the BFA which allows
US military personnel to engage in activities in the
Philippines.
Naging issue ni siya because of the dba katong terror
attacks so karon nag adto na ang US diri para ienhance
ang ang atoang military forces to repel such illegal acts of
terrorists. So ana ang supreme court okay siya and also
this concept of soft law. So kung nay soft law naa puy
hard law.
Soft law - an expression of non-binding norms, principles,
or practices that influence state behavior.
So kung basahon nimo iyang meaning, dili siya binding.
Mere principles and practices that only influence state
behavior.
PHARMACEUTICAL VS. DOH
This case talks about the milk code.
So the DOH issued an IRR for the milk code and several
provisions of the IRR prohibit the advertising, promotions,
sponsorship, etc. for breast milk substitutes intended for
the infants and the young children up to 24 months.
78
So gibawalan sa IRR ang pag advertise to promote aning
mga substitutes sa breastmilk. Now, one of the clauses of
the milk codes states that this law, the milk code, is only
giving effect, in other words, gi transform nato ang isa ka
buok nga international law kaning international code on
market of breast substitute into a domestic law by way of a
local legislation which is the milk code. In any case, the
World Health Assembly, which adapted this ICMBS, this
international code of marketing etc. for breastmilk, the
WHA issued several resolutions so the effect that
breastfeeding should be supported, promoted, and
protected. Hence, it should ensure the nutritional health
claims are not be permitted for breastmilk substitute. So by
way of these issuances, resolutions of the WHA, strikto
ang enforcement sa pag promote sa breastmilk over
Breastmilk substitute.
The DOH is saying that we are only implementing the
issuances, the resolutions of the WHA. So pharmaceutical
is assailing the IRR of going beyond the provisions of the
milk code. Wala nakabutang sa milk code na bawal mag
promote pero kamo sa IRR gi bawal ninyo. Going beyond
the law. Pero the defense of DOH is that the IRR
implements not only the milk code, but also the WHA
resolutions which say na bawal mag promote ug
breastmilk substitutes. So mao to siya bantog nilapas mi
sa milk code kay nirefer mi sa WHA resolutions.
Supreme Court said that the ICMBS which was
adopted by WHA in 1981 (International Code of
Marketing for Breastmilk Substitutes) was transformed
into domestic law through a local legislation, the Milk
Code. Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has force
and effect in this jurisdiction and not the ICMBS.
The milk code did not adopt, however, the provisions of
the ICMBS absolutely prohibiting the advertisement of
breastmilk substitutes. In other words, the milk code itself
allows it may be allowed if such materials are duly
authorized and approved by interagency committee.
What about the WHA resolutions?
Supreme court "kani ba na mga resolutions, are they
binding?" Pwede ba siyang maging basis to make it
applicable to local law or domestic law? Have these
resolutions attained the status of customary law and that
they should be deemed incorporated as part of the law of
the land. Are they binding?
NO. they are mainly recommendatory and legally non-
binding.
Unsa iyang status?
They are considered as soft law or non-binding norms,
principles, and practices that merely influence state
behavior[3] . So it is an expression of non-binding norms,
practices that influence state behavior. So dili siya, in other
words pwede mahimong basis to prohibit a certain act
because in the first place is not even binding.
So you cannot make kani dba naa tay domestic legislation
which is the milk code unya wala man didto gna prohibit sa
milk code ang pag advertise ug breastmilk substitute. You
cannot say na "ay amo siyang pwede iprohibit because an
international... the WHA issued..." no you cannot use that
because it's not binding. There must be provision allowing
you to prohibit that through what? The milk code or some
other governing generally accepted principle of
international law.
Again, as a rule, IRRs cannot go beyond the laws that
they are implementing such as in this case. So they
cannot justify the prohibition ang basis of the prohibition
can not be under the milk code because wala man to nga
prohibition and also the WHA resolutions because the
resolutions themselves are not binding.
The distinction between hard law and soft law:
HARD LAW - binding rules of international law.
SOFT LAW- are non-binding norms, principles, and
practices that influence the state behavior.
OCAMPO VS ENRIQUEZ
This is the libingan ng mga bayani issue. One of those
opposing the burial of the former president was Rosales.
If the state is to ensure its commitment to the principles
of international human rights law, human rights violation
victims must be given full satisfaction under the basic
principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and
reparation of victims of gross violations of international
human rights law etc.
So kani ang basis. dapat daw in order to give these
victims under the martial law regime, complete
reparation, we have to comply with our obligations in
these basic principles and guidelines.
Ana ang Supreme Court, under the case of
pharmaceutical vs Health of secretary Duque III, these
principles and guidelines and even the UN principles,
79
 these are mere expressions of non binding norms, troops, bases, and facilities.
principles, and practices that merely influence state
behavior and they cannot be considered as sources of This is false because the constitution does
international law that is binding on the Philippines. not require that any and all subjects involved
in international relations be in the form of a
treaty. In fact, the constitution only explicitly
mandates na when it comes kani lang siya na
——————
subject matter it should be in a treaty—kaning
QUIZ ANSWERS:
foreign military troops, bases, and facilities.
1. Auto-limitation is the property of a state,
due to which, it has the exclusive self-
In so far as other matters are concerned
capacity of legal self-restriction.
walay requirement under the constitution that
such agreement should be in a treaty.
So is this the description for auto-limitation?
Yes. So, the answer to this—true.
6. The incorporation method requires that an
international law be transformed into a
2. [inaudible] adopts the generally accepted
domestic law through a constitutional
principles of international laws as part of
method such as local legislative.
the law of the land and adheres to the
policy of cooperation and unity in all
This is false. This is the definition of the
nations, portion of its sovereignty cannot
transformation method. Kung dili ni siya
be waived without violating the
incorporation, this is transformation.
constitution.
7. Transformation applies when by mere
This is false because as we’ve emphasized in
constitutional declaration, the
the last meeting, pwede na siya i-waive. A
international law has the force of domestic
portion of sovereignty can be waived without
law.
violating the constitution. In fact, the
constitution itself allows the entering of the
This is false because this is the definition for
state into treaties which have the
the incorporation. So, they switched. So, false
characteristic of limiting sovereignty to an
ni silang duha.
extent.
8. Soft law is the expression of non-binding
3. By their inherent nature, treaties restrict
norms, principles, and practices that
the absoluteness of sovereignty.
influence behavior.
Yes. So, this is true.
Yes. True.
4. Due to the limitations imposed by the very
9. A treaty must go through a process in the
nature of the membership in a family of
constitution for it to be transformed into
nations and the limitation imposed by
municipal law. It can be applied to
treaties’ stipulations, the sovereignty of
domestic countries.
the state cannot , in reality, be considered
absolute.
Yes. The constitution requires that if you want
the treaty to be valid it has to be ratified by the
Yes.True.
executive and concurred by the senate.
5. The constitution requires that any and all
So naay process na gina-require under the
subjects involved in international relations
constitution nga agian ng mga treaties before
to be in the form of and ratified as a treaty
except in the entry of foreign military
80
 they are transformed to municipal law.
10. A treaty is not superior to a municipal or
domestic law.
Yes, we discussed this last meeting that
under jurisdiction, they have the force and
effect equal to municipal or domestic law. So,
ang treaty, dili siya superior in our jurisdiction.
Let’s continue with our discussion. We are now in our
4th week. So last meeting, we’ve discussed matters
regarding sovereignty. A matter that is very important
and related to sovereignty is state immunity and very
extensive atong discussion ani as you can see in the
assigned readings.
Also, we’ll discuss the last element of the state which
is government—it’s definition in general and the
government of the Philippines as defined in our laws.
Also, we’ll discuss this week general principles and
state policies and the concept of separation of
powers.
So, going back. The four elements of state: people,
territory, government, and sovereignty. Gi-discuss
nato last meeting sovereignty. We started our last
meeting with sovereignty.
Sovereign Immunity
As a rule, you cannot sue the State. If sued, the
State may move to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that it has been filed without its consent. As
applied to local State, it is based on the very
essence of sovereignty.
Related to our topic is sovereign immunity or state
immunity. Why is this so important? Kay daghan
kaayo concepts that are related to international law,
PIL…also this is a by far favorite topic in the bar
exam.
Where do we find this sovereign immunity?
This is in Article 16 Section 3 of the Constitution. It
provides that “state may not be sued without its
consent.”
General Rule: You cannot sue the state.
Unless, it gives its consent to be sued.
The ground for the dismissal of the case based on
premise of sovereign immunity. Applied to that, the
local state in our jurisdiction. It is based on the very
basis of sovereignty. Why is that?
Royal prerogative of dishonesty- It is simply refers
to sovereign or state immunity from suit.
Sovereign Immunity
This immunity is also known as the Royal
prerogative of dishonesty because it grants
allows the state the prerogative to defeat any
legitimate claim against it in simply invoking its
non-suability.
Because of the idea that all rights come from the
state, the state can do anything. It can be
dishonest without fear of being sued.
Ang atong mga rights ug obligations, as a rule,
comes from the state. So kaning rights gikan man sa
state, so we cannot sue the entity that gave us these
rights. It can defeat a claim against it because the
entity that gave you such rights in the first place.
Now, so kato ang local setting. In other words, you
cannot sue state entities. Example, you cannot sue
the government, incorporated government institutions
or agencies. The rule why is pwede na i-invoke sa
atong mga local agencies is kaning sovereign
immunity.
Can we sue China for the COVID? Sue US for AIDS
or whatever?
Does this is doctrine apply to foreign states?
Yes, because of the concept of sovereign
equality of all the states.
Immunity is enjoyed by other States, consonant with
the public international law principle of Par in
81
 parem non habet imperium. The head of State
who is deemed the personification of the State, is
inviolable, and thus, enjoys immunity from suit.
So, when you go to second year and discuss the
matter in EIL…
The extension of this immunity is not only vested on
the foreign states. It extends to its head, its
diplomatic agents, and certain representatives as
we will be discussing later.
So pwede ni siya magamit as a defense ng mga
foreign state. It is sued by another state before a
court or a local court. So anyways
Kining atoang gidisuss na case, naa ni practical
reason ngano dili mag-prevail ang suit against a
state.
Republic vs. Villasor
A sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of
any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on
logical and practical ground that there can be no
legal right as against the authority that makes the
law on which the right depends.
A continued adherence to the doctrine of non-
suability is not to be deplored for as against the
inconvenience that may be caused private parties,
the loss of governmental efficiency and the
obstacle to the performance of its multifarious
functions are far greater if such a fundamental
principle were abandoned and the availability of
judicial remedy were not thus restricted.
What does that mean? It simply means that if this
sovereign immunity does not exist, any minor
inconvenience experienced by a citizen can be a
ground for a suit. So mag kaso sila everyday. Walay
silay ayuda or whatever. Kasohan ang gobyerno. So
karon atong government unsa man? Instead of
focusing on the things that should be prioritized,
among others, Cha-Cha. I think that should be
prioritized kaysa sige nalang mag suits.
So this is another reason why the doctrine exists.
Para ma-protect pud ang government from these.
When is a suit against the State?
1. A suit against the Republic by name;
(ex. Republic of the Phils.)
2. A suit against an unincorporated
government agency;
(ex. DOLE, DOH, Office of Ombudsmand)
3. A suit against a government agency covered
by a charter with respect to the agency’s
performance of governmental functions; and
(ex. Agency created by law with its own
charter)
4. A suit that on its face is against a
government officer, but where the ultimate
liability will fall on the government. (PROVI
vs TESDA, 2009)
(ex. Suing officer for damages, but there is a
requirement for the gov’t to appropriate a
sum of money; naay burden ang
government basically you are involving the
gov’t so it is a suit against the government)
As a general rule, the state can set up state immunity
to defeat the suit. It will use it as a ground for the
dismissal of the suit.
So kabalo pud ka dapat. For example you are
representing the government, kabalo pud ka dapat if
you can raise state immunity as a defense.
On the private end, kabalo pud ka dapat if you are
suing on the exceptions.
PROFESSIONAL VIDEO,INC. VS TESDA (2007)
Can TESDA be sued without the State’s
consent?
No. TESDA, as an agency of the State, cannot
be sued without its consent. TESDA is an
unincorporated instrumentality of the government,
directly attached to the DOLE through the
participation of the Secretary of Labor as its
Chairman, for the performance of governmental
82
 functions i.e. the handling of formal and non-
formal education and training, and skills
development
As an unincorporated instrumentality operating
under a specific charter, it is equipped with both
express and implied powers, and all State
immunities fully apply to it.
In the present case, it is a suit against a
government agency covered by its own charter.
TESDA performs governmental functions and the
issuance of certifications is a task within its
function of developing and establishing a system
of skills standardization, testing, and certification
in the country.
So in PROVI v. TESDA:
There is a contract here involving the ID. Nagkontrata
si TESDA aning PROVI para sa paghimo ug mga
IDs. Karon, there is a non-compliance, non-payment
by TESDA of its pila man to iyang bayronon. So
nagkaso ni si PROVI against TESDA for payment.
So, isa sa mga discussions diri na part issues—
can TESDA be sued with the State’s consent?
According to Supreme Court, NO. In other words, it
can only be sued if it wants to be sued.
TESDA can raise the defense of state immunity.
So ano nalang, sir? Naa man contract na gi-breach
so to speak. Unsa nalang remedy?
There are remedies that will be discussed. Kung naa
kay ma-claim sa government. But here, gi-emphasize
ng court nga di ka pwede magdiretso sa court among
other things.
So ang emphasis diri na case, kay ang enumeration
na what suits are considered against the state as
enumerated in PROVI v. TESDA.
Can the State be sued at all?
Article XVI, Section 3 provides the general rule and
the exception: that the State may not be sued
without its consent.
The general rule is that the State cannot be sued
without its consent. Conversely, it may be sued if it
consents to be sued.
There are cases na mao to, gikasohan ang State
because of na act it did. Isa sa mga defense i-raise
ng state kay state immunity. Now, nag-prevail ba ang
defense in these cases?
Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO (2010)
Expropriation
Under these circumstances, the Air Transportation
Office may not validly invoke the Royal Prerogative
of Dishonesty and conveniently hide under the
State’s cloak of invincibility against suit,
considering that this principle yields to certain
settled exceptions. True enough, the rule, in any
case, is not absolute for it does not say that the
state may not be sued under any circumstance.
Thus, in Amigable v. Cuenca, this Court, in effect,
shred the protective shroud which shields the State
from suit, “the doctrine of governmental immunity
from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.
This is a matter involving expropriation.
What is expropriation?
This is the process undertaken by the
government to take private property for public
use. Expropriation is the method used by the
government to exercise one of its inherent
powers—eminent domain.
Expropriate kay kuhaon niya ang property. Walay
problema if the owner of the property voluntarily
mosugot siya kuhaon ang property, mosugot sa
valuation. Bayran man ka ana because it’s your
property. Bayran ka ana sa prevailing market value.
So question is what if dili mosugot. Dira ra mugawas
ang issue no? If dili mosugot ang owners sa property.
So karon ang government mag-initiate ug
expropriation proceedings. Mao to siya ang court ha
to compel you for a ruling from the court na
authorizing it to take your property. And if in the
process, the court will determine if the government is
83
in authority to do so…if the taking is for public use…
and of course ang process gi-compute pud ang just
compensation.
So in the case of Heirs of Pidacan v. ATO. Kini
gikuha ang property, wala gibayaran, unya ang
defense karon sa ATO I cannot be sued.
In the first place, ikaw man nag-initiate sa
expropriation procedures. Dili ka makaingon dili ka
ma-sue na ikaw mismo nag-sue eh.
Di ba ganiha we emphasized the State can be sued if
it consents to be sued. So naay instances based on
jurisprudence nag-ingon ang court this amounts to
consent. So isa diri, kaning expropriation.
In cases of expropriation, the State cannot raise
the defense of State Immunity.
ATO v. Ramos (2011)
Spouses David and Elisa Ramos discovered that a portion
of their land was being used as part of the runway and
running shoulder of the Loakan Airport being operated by
Air Transportation office (ATO).
On August 11, 1995, the respondents agreed after
negotiations to convey the affected portion by deed of sale
to the ATO in consideration of the amount of Php
778,150.00.
However, the ATO failed to pay despite repeated verbal
and written demands. Thus on April 29, 1998 the
respondents filed an action against the ATO and some of
its officials in the RTC.
Siyempre, and defense ng ATO: I am immune from suit
Whether the ATO could be sued without the State’s
consent
As a rule, an unincorporated government agency
without any separate juridical personality of its own
enjoys immunity from suit because it is invested with an
inherent power of sovereignty
It is as if you are suing the State itself eh because it has
no personality separate from the State. As a rule, you
cannot sue the State.
However, the need to distinguish between an
unincorporated government agency performing
governmental function and one performing proprietary
functions has arisen.
Even if you are an unincorporated government agency,
you cannot just expect that by raising the State immunity
defense you are exempt. Kay naay himuong distinction
pud ang court especially if ma-point out ng parties na you
are being sued in a proprietary capacity
The immunity has been upheld in favor of the former
because its function is governmental or incidental to
such function; it has not been upheld in favor of the
latter whose function was not in pursuit of a
necessary function of government but was essentially
a business.
So naa nay qualification.
ATO as an agency of the Government not performing a
purely governmental or sovereign function, but was
instead involved in the management and maintenance
of the Loakan Airport, an activity that was not the
exclusive prerogative of the State in its sovereign
capacity.
Hence, the ATO had no claim to the States immunity from
the suit.
We further observe the doctrine of sovereign immunity
cannot be successfully invoked to defeat a valid claim
for compensation arising from the taking without just
compensation and without the proper expropriation
proceedings being first resorted to of the plaintiffs property.
So gusto karon sa owners sa property na mabayran ang
value sa ilang property pero di pwede muingon ang state
na oh I’m immune from suit.
In actions for payment of just compensation, the state
immunity from suit does not apply
The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of sovereign
immunity was not an instrument for penetrating any
injustice on a citizen.
In exercising the right of eminent domain, the Court
explained, the State exercises its jus imperii, [sovereign
functions] as distinguished from its proprietary rights, or
jus gestionis.
However even in that area where private property had
been taken in expropriation without just compensation
being paid, the defense of immunity from suit could not
be set up by the State against an action for payment
by the owners.
Because this would result in an injustice. So another
exception to the rule of immunity is injustice.
CNMEG v. Santamaria (2012)
84

So they entered into an agreement with a Chinese
company. Gi-seek ang annulment ani na contract and this
Chinese entity due to reasons such as being
unconstitutional. Isa sa mga defenses aning CNMEG is
that it is sovereign entity of China. So if you are suing it,
you are suing China.
Diba naa man to katong if it is proprietary – dili mag
prevail ang immunity. If governmental function – immunity
prevails.
The same concept applies to States sued in a local court.
There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity.
Classical or Absolute Theory – a sovereign cannot ,
without its consent, be made respondent in the courts of
another sovereign
Newer or Restrictive Theory – immunity of the sovereign
is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure
imperii of a State, but not with regard to private acts or
acts jure gestionis.
So naay distinction diba gi-discuss man nato sa earlier
case tung kay ATTO v. Ramos ba to na if it is for a
proprietary function dili mag-prevail ang immunity. If it is
for governmental function, the immunity will prevail.
Restrictive theory came about because of the entry of
sovereign states into purely commercial activities
remotely connected with the discharge of
governmental functions. This is particularly true with
respect to the Communist states which took control of
nationalized business activities and international trading.
Halimbawa naay valid claim ang State engaged in a
commercial activity. Para matagaan pud ug remedy tung
suing state against the other state doing commercial ops.
In JUSMAG v. NLRC, this Court affirmed the
Philippines’ adherence to the restrictive theory.
in other words, we make a distinction. If you are suing a
state. Tanawon sa nimo in what capacity ang acts.
The adherence to the restrictive theory calls for the
ascertainment of the legal nature of the act involved.
Since the Philippines adheres to the restrictive theory, it is
crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act involved
whether the entity claiming the immunity performs
governmental, as opposed to proprietary functions.
The restrictive application Stare immunity is proper only
when the proceedings arise out of commercial.
So maging strikto ka in other words, you need to know
acts involved before you apply immunity.
Stated differently, a State may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual and can thus
bee deemed to have tacitly given its consent to be
sued only when it enters into business contracts. It
does NOT apply where the contract relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions.
Here, placing together the content and tenor of the
Contract Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding
dated 14 September 2002, Amb Wang’s letter dated 1
October 2003 and the Loan Agreement would reveal the
desire of CNMEG to construct the Luzon Railways in
pursuit of a purely commercial activity performed in
the ordinary course of business.
In other words, pwede siya ma-sue under the restrictive
theory
—————-
Proprietory function dili mag prevail ang immunity, if it
is for a governmental function the immunity will
prevail. The same doctrine applies to states
themselves na gina kasohan in a local court. So kani
timan-e ni nga theory. This restricitive theory came
about because the entry of sovereign states into
purely commercial activity. China for example
remotely connected with the discharge of
governmental functions. So and the ana no dili
pwede ma defeat ang for example there is a valid
claim to a state against a state na engaged in a
commercial activity bantog nag evolved sya para
matagaan ug remedy tung suing state against that
other state were just doing commercial functions and
in our jurisprudence DIOSMAG VS. NLRC the
supreme court has affirmed that the Philippines
adheres to the restrictive theory in other words we
make a distinction even if you are suing an
incorporate government agency or even if you’re
suing a state tan-awun sa nimo kung in what capacity
is it an act involved dire kay ang basis from your sue,
so the adherence for these theory calls for the
ascertainment for the legal nature of the act involved.
So the Philippines adheres to these restrictive theory
it is crucial to ascertain the legal nature of the act
involved whether is it performing governmental
function? Or was it doing proprietary functions, kung
proprietary functions dili mag prevail ang state
immunity from sued. The restrictive application of
state immunity is proper only on proceedings arise
85
out of commercial transactions of the foreign
sovereign. So maging strikto ka in other words. You
need to that apply state immunity if the proceedings
or the acts involves pertain to commercial
transactions of the foreign sovereign stated
differently a state may said to have descended into
the level of an individual an ordinary individual and
can thus be impliedly given its consent to be sued
only when it enters into a business contract. It does
not apply however with the contract relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions. Here piecing
together the cases of evidence nagpakita sa katung
those who are opposing these contracts it would
appear that the contract entered into between these
entities C and meg and the Philippines is a for a
purely commercial activity which is performed in the
ordinary course of CNMegs business so in other
words pwede sya ma sue before the court because it
is for a proprietary activity under the restrictive
theory.
We have MINUCHER VS CA, minucher acquitted
here from a drugs case gi entrap sya and gi kasohan
gi acquit sya because he claim that he was the victim
of the chunk up charges of the certain Arthur Scalzo
karun nanimalos si Minucher g kasohan niya si
Scalzo for damage ana si scalzo he filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that he is an agent of the U.S.
and he was entitled to diplomatic immunity mao iyang
defense ‘” I am an agent of the U.S. precisely I’m
here to the Philippines for this buy bust
circumstances situations so I am Immune from sued I
am a representative of the U.S. therefor I enjoy the
Immunity of the US sovereign. The trial court
however denied the motion for dismiss and ultimately
held that he was liable for damages it ruled that he
should be held accountable for the acts played of
because commited them with his official duties. So
niadto karun si Scalzo sa Supreme Court ang finding
sa supreme court is Scalzo here is an U.S. drug
enforcement agency and he was allowed to the
Philippine government to conduct activities in the
country to help contain the problem on the drug
traffic. He is therefore entitled to the defense of state
immunity from sued, it was established that he work
for this agency to conduct surveillance of suspected
drug activities within the country. Now unsa may
basis? A state cannot be sued in a courts of a foreign
state is a longstanding rule of customary international
law then closely identified with personal immunity of
a foreign sovereign from sue and within the
emergence of a democratic states it was also made
to attached not only to the head of the state but his
representatives and also distinctly the state itself in
its sovereign capacity. If the acts giving rise to a sued
are those of a foreign government done by its foreign
agent even alone not necessarily evaded diplomatic
personage but he is acting in his official capacity the
complaint could be barred by its defense of state
immunity by the immunity of the foreign sovereign
from sued without its consent, suing a representative
of a state is believed to be in effect suing the state
from itself, In other words the defense of immunity of
a state extends to its representatives that are doing
official functions. The prescription is not accorded for
the benefit of the individual the agent himself is not
for its benefit but rather this is for the state who nga
iyang gina represent who’s service he is under the
maxim par in parem non habet imperium that all
state are sovereignly equal and cannot assert
jurisdiction over one another. The implication is
that the judgment against an official would require the
state itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy the
award kay kuntahay si Scalzo dire ma filed liable for
damages the U.S. government will have to
appropriate fines because in relation siya sa iyang
official function, wala man siya gikasohan into its
personal capacity in other words damay ang U.S. in
the payment of the damages so you are basically
suing the U.S. ang ultimate liability mahulog saiyaha
sa sovereign sa U.S. such as the appropriation of the
amount needed to pay the damages decreed against
him. Here the official exchanges of communication
between the agencies of the U.S. and the Philippines
is not enough to confer upon Scalzo the status of a
diplomat dili siya diplomat therefore entitled to
diplomatic immunity. However, it was established he
was an agent of the U.S. under the U.S. Drug
enforcement Agency and was allowed in the
Philippines to conduct and to aid it in its drug
campaign then as a representative of the US doint
official functions pwede sya maka raise ug defense in
state immunity However this principle has limitations
it is a different matter when the public official is made
86
to account in its capacity for acts that are contrary to
the law and injuries of the rights. Example gikasohan
siya for Murder or Bigamy you can no longer say that
you are immune for sued unsa may kinalaman sa US
saimohang pag bigamy nimo? Sa imong pagpatay sa
isig ka tao. In as much as the state authorize only
legal acts by its officers, Unauthorized acts of
governmental officials are not acts of the state. In
here napakita man na official act ang gihimo ni
scalzo in relations to its duties as such agent of the
US DEA dili siya pwede makasohan without the
consent of the US.
DOH VS. PHIL PHARMAWEALTH
PPI filed before the RTC a complaint to reverse to
not declare null and void certain DOH administrative
issuances. The supreme court said the case should
be dismissed for the sued against the state which
was instituted without its consent.
Again, the state may not be sued without the
consent. it recognized the sovereign character of the
state and its express affirmation of the rule effectively
insulating if from the jurisdiction of the courts. Here gi
kasohan niya ang DOH but the DOH in an
unincorporated government agency which
performs governmental function. So when you’re
suing DOH you are suing the state itself in can
therefore validly invoke the defense of immunity from
suit so dili siya musugot na ma sue siya I dismissed
ang case because as a rule it is immune from suit.
PHILPHARMA ones told DOH shall solitarily liable for
the other defendant, in cannot be done without the
consent of state without the consent of the DOH
because ultimately it will constitute a charged or
financial liability against the state undoubtedly if PPI
succeeds in the sued the DOH will become
vulnerable for the imposition of a financial charge in
the form of damages and this will require an
appropriation from the national treasure which
precisely the situation which the doctrine state
immunity to protect the state. This doctrine of state
immunity extends to its protective matter to
complaints filed against states official for acts done in
the discharged and performance to its duties.
Remember nga kaning mga state officials nato they
can invoke state immunity from sued provided that
the acts are done in their official duties. The sued be
lately in a government official depends on whether
the official
DOH VS. PHIL PHARMA (2013)
On December 28, 2000, Phil. Pharmawealth Inc., (PPI) filed before the Regional
Trial Court a Complaint seeking to declare null and void certain DOH
administrative issuances, with prayer for damages and injunction against the
DOH, former Secretary Romualdez and DOH Undersecretary Galon.
For what it claims was an undue suspension of its accreditation, PPI prayed that
AO 10, Memorandum No. 171-C, Undersecretary Galon's suspension order
contained in her November 23, 2000 letter, and AO 14 be declared null and void,
and that it be awarded moral damages of PS million, exemplary damages of -P.1
million, attorney's fees of P1 million, and costs of suit. PPI likewise prayed for the
issuance of temporary and permanent injunctive relief.
Ruling
The case should be dismissed for being a suit against the State which was
instituted without its consent. The basic postulate enshrined in the constitution
that t(t)he State may not be sued without its consent: recognizes the sovereign
character of the State and is an express affirmation of the unwritten rule
effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts.
The DOH is an unincorporated agency which performs sovereign or
governmental functions
In this case, the DOH, being an "unincorporated agency of the government" can
validly invoke the defense of immunity from suit because it has not consented,
either expressly or impliedly, to be sued. Significantly, the DOH is an
unincorporated agency which performs functions of governmental character.
The Complaint seeks to hold the DOH solidarily and jointly liable with the other
defendants for damages which constitutes a charge or financial liability against
the State.
On December 28, 2000, Phil. Pharmawealth Inc., (PPI) filed before the Regional
Trial Court a Complaint seeking to declare null and void certain DOH
administrative issuances, with prayer for damages and injunction against the
DOH, former Secretary Romualdez and DOH Undersecretary Galon.
On December 28, 2000, Phil. Pharmawealth Inc., (PPI) filed before the Regional
Trial Court a Complaint seeking to declare null and void certain DOH
administrative issuances, with prayer for damages and injunction against the
DOH, former Secretary Romualdez and DOH Undersecretary Galon.
Therefore remember, kaning mga state officials
nato, they can invoke state immunity as long as
they are part of their official capacity. Otherwise dili
na pwede ma claim.
The Complaint seeks to hold the DOH solidarity and
jointly liable with the other defendants for damages
which constitutes a charge or financial liability
against the State.
Undoubtedly, in the event that PPI succeeds in its
suit, the government or the state through the DOH
would become vulnerable to an imposition or
financial charge in the form of damages. This would
require an appropriation from the national treasury
which is precisely the situation which the doctrine of
state immunity aims to protect the state from.
The doctrine of state immunity extends its
protective mantle also to complaints filed
against state officials for acts done in the
87
discharge and performance of their duties.
The suability of a government official depends on
whether the official concerned was acting within
his official or jurisdictional capacity, and
whether the acts done in the performance of
official functions will result in a charge or
financial liability against the government.
Moreover, the rule is that if the judgment against
such officials will require the state itself to perform
an affirmative act to satisfy the same, such as the
appropriation of the amount needed to pay the
damages awarded against them, the suit must be
regarded as against the State. In such a situation,
the State may move to dismiss the complaint on the
ground that it has been filed without its consent.
When can public officials be validly sued?
Public officials can be held personally accountable
for acts claimed to have been performed in
connection with official duties where they have
acted ultra vires or where there is showing of
bad faith.
Bad faith such as mangawat ka or gigamit ra nimo
pangalan sa gobyerno or may procurement gi
reward nimo sa undeserving person or nakapatay
kag tao
Here, Secretaries Romualdez and Dayrit were
being charged with the issuance of the assailed
orders. On the other hand, Undersecretary Galon
was being charged with implementing the assailed
issuances.
By no stretch of imagination could the same be
categorized as ultra vires simply because the said
acts are well within the scope of their authority.
FIGUEROA V. SECURITY PACIFIC (2017)
The National Treasurer was sued for damages in
her personal and official capacity for having allowed
the garnishment and sale of securities that are
statutorily exempt from levy or lien pursuant to
Section 203 of the Insurance Code.
May she, as a public officer, be validly sued in
her private capacity for acts done in connection
with the discharge of the functions of her
office?
Yes. The general rule is that a public officer is not
liable for damages which a person may suffer
arising from the just performance of his official
duties and within the scope of his assigned task. An
officer who acts within his authority to administer
the affairs of the office which he heads is not liable
for damages that may have been caused to
another, as it would virtually be a charge against the
Republic, which is not amenable to judgment for
monetary claims without its consent.
However, a public officer is, by law, not immune
from damages in his/her personal capacity for
acts done in bad faith which, being outside the
scope of his authority, are no longer protected
by the mantle of immunity for official actions.
As a matter of fact, Section 38, Book I of the
Administrative Code, which speaks of liability of
superior officers, expressly states that civil liability
may arise where there is bad faith, malice, or gross
negligence on the part of the superior public officer.
The Administrative Code allows restitution if the
officer does bad faith, malice…
In fine, in Our jurisdiction, a public officer may be
validly sued in his private capacity for acts done in
the course of the performance of the function of the
office, where said public officer: (1) acted with
malice, bad faith, or negligence; or (2) where the
public officer violated a constitutional right of the
plaintiff
Contrary to the Treasurer's contention, the doctrine
of State immunity cannot be applied in all cases
wherein the party being sued is a public officer for
acts performed in his official capacity. Such
immunity from suit, as well as the disputable
presumption of good faith and regular performance
of duty enjoyed by public officers, are never meant
to be an iron-clad, all-encompassing, blanket
security for such officers. Otherwise, no public
officer could ever be sued for acts executed beyond
their official functions or authority, for criminal acts,
tortious behavior, or negligent conduct.
Treasurer siya pero iyang gihimo namaligya. Duties
niya to protect the property. The law requires her to
not allow the sale of securities. Pero gi-allow man
niya nevertheless. Di n ani siya protected by the
mantle of state immunity.
88

ARIGO VS. SWIFT (2014)
So naay US ship, nibangga sa Tubbataha reef.
Nadamage pud ang Tubbataha reef. Naa pud sila
recovery operations to salvage the ship, etc.
Naay suing why the officials allowed that the
happen for damages on the environment, etc.
Karon, ilahang gi-raise ang state immunity as a
defense. Nag prevail ba?
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as
the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability
of the State, is expressly provided in Article XVI of
the 1987 Constitution
As applied to the local State, the doctrine of state
immunity is based on the justification given by
Justice Holmes that "there can be no legal right
against the authority which makes the law on which
the right depends."
The immunity of the State from suit, known also as
the doctrine of sovereign immunity or non-suability
of the State, is expressly provided in Article XVI of
the 1987 Constitution
As applied to the local State, the doctrine of
state immunity is based on the justification
given by Justice Holmes that "there can be no
legal right against the authority which makes
the law on which the right depends."
In the case of the foreign State sought to be
impleaded in the local jurisdiction, the added
inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem,
non habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals
and cannot assert jurisdiction over one another. A
contrary disposition would, in the language of a
celebrated case, "unduly vex the peace of nations."
While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits
against the State without its consent, it is also
applicable to complaints filed against officials of
the State for acts allegedly performed by them
in the discharge of their duties.
If the judgment against such officials will require the
State itself to perform an affirmative act to satisfy
the same, such as the appropriation of the amount
needed to pay the damages awarded against them,
the suit must be regarded as against the state itself
although it has not been formally impleaded.
However, the doctrine of immunity from suit will not
apply and may not be invoked where the public
official is being sued in his private and personal
capacity as an ordinary citizen.
The cloak of protection afforded the officers and
agents of the government is removed the moment
they are sued in their individual capacity. This
situation usually arises where the public official acts
without authority or in excess of the powers vested
in him.
Dili naman m liable ang state niana kay naa na man
mismo. No longer authorized to do the tasks.
In this case, the US respondents were sued in their
official capacity as commanding officers of the US
Navy who had control and supervision over the
USS Guardian and its crew.
They can validly raise the defense. So if no
consent, dismissed.
The alleged act or omission resulting in the
unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the
Tubbataha Reef was committed while they were
performing official military duties.
Considering that the satisfaction of a judgment
against said officials will require remedial actions
and appropriation of funds by the US government,
the suit is deemed to be one against the US
itself.
The principle of State immunity therefore bars the
exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the
persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
NHA VS. ROXAS (2015)
The NHA is not immune from suit
NHA is a government agency no
First of all, the mantle of the State's immunity from
suit did not extend to the NHA despite its being a
government-owned and -controlled corporation.
(GOCC)
Under Section 6(i) of Presidential Decree No.
89
 757, which was its charter, the NHA could sue
and be sued. As such, the NHA was not immune
from the suit of Roxas.
The state allowed the agency to be suable. It is a
waiver in favor of the citizens.
HOW MAY CONSENT BE GIVEN?
The State's consent may be given either
EXPRESSLY or IMPLIEDLY.
EXPRESS CONSENT
May be made through enactment by Congress of a
general law or special law waiving the immunity, such
as:
Example tung NHA ganiha
1. Act No. 3083
2. Commonwealth Act 327
3. Presidential Decree No. 1447
4. The Civil Code (Articles 2180 and 2189)
5. The Local Government Code (Section 24)
6. Charters of GOCCs
IMPLIED CONSENT
1. When the State commences the litigation. It
becomes vulnerable to a counterclaim. Intervention
by the State would constitute commencement of
litigation
Dili pwede na ikaw ang mag make ug claim, muingon
pud ka na dili ko pwede ma-sue. The fact that you
subjected yourself to the rigors of the Court
processes, you subject yourself to the possibility of
conflict.
Also, the intervention of the government constitutes
commencement of litigation. Implied consent. Ngano
mu-apil man ka kung wala man ka gikasohan?
2. When the State enters into a business contract.
(Take note of the RESTRICTIVE DOCTRINE OF
STATE IMMUNITY)
Example tung contract with proprietary character, this
can be an implied consent to be sued. Remember?
Juri imperii. Related siya sa atong discussion sa
restrictive theory ug state immunity
Di man pwede na mosulod ug contract ang state,
unya muingon lang siya exempt siya.
3. When it accepts conditional donation. DECS v.
Onate
Subject man to condition so dapat mag-comply sa
mga conditions. Pwede siya ma-sue para ma revoke
ang donation. Gov’t cannot say immune from suit kay
gi-accept ang conditions.
4. When it takes over private property without
compensation
Gi-mention ganiha tung expropriation.
5. In cases of implied contracts
6. Gross negligence
a grave blunder, considered as gross negligence.
Example na damage ang private property.
7. When the claim of immunity is inequitable —
e.g., in just compensation cases or when quantum
meruit applies
Dili pwede if it results to an injustice
VETERANS MANPOWER VS. CA (1992)
Nag enter ug memorandum of agreement. Ang Philippine
constabulary and PADPAO. To improve the security
services of the country. Because of this MOA, naa na silay
prevailing rules of guidelines.
Karon, si Veterans Manpower gikasohan sa agency by
another security corporation kay nag-violate sila. Karon na
cancel ang license sa manpower, gikasohan nila ang PC
chief ug PC-SUSIA for damages and reversal of the
revocation of its license.
Ang defense karon, si PC, they cannot sue for damages
without the State’s consent. Ana ang Supreme Court, tam
apud sila.
Invoking this rule, the PC Chief and the PC-
SUPERVISORY UNIT FOR SECURITY AND
INVESTIGATION AGENCIES (PC-SUSIA) contend that,
being instrumentalities of the national government
exercising a primarily governmental function of regulating
the organization and operation of private detective,
watchmen, or security guard agencies, said official (the PC
Chief) and agency (PC-SUSIA) may not be sued for
damages without the Government's consent.
Ruling
90
They are correct While the doctrine appears to prohibit
only suits against the state without its consent, it is also
applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state
for acts performed by them in the discharge of their duties.
The rule is that if the judgment against such officials will
require the state itself to perform an affirmative act to
satisfy the same, such as the appropriation of the amount
needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the
suit must be regarded as against the state itself although it
has not been formally impleaded.
A public official may sometimes be held liable in his
personal or private capacity if he acts in bad faith, or
beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction, however,
since the acts for which the PC Chief and PC-SUSIA
are being called to account in this case, were
performed by them as part of their official duties,
without malice, gross negligence, or bad faith, no
recovery may be had against them in their private
capacities.
The Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986
does not constitute an implied consent by the State to
be sued.
The Memorandum of Agreement dated May 12, 1986
was entered into by the PC Chief in relation to the
exercise of a function sovereign in nature. The
correct test for the application of state immunity
is not the conclusion of a contract by the State
but the legal nature of the act.
DA VS. NLRC (1993)
Ang nahitabo ani naay mga guards sa Department of
Agriculture unya nagreklamo sila sa ilang sweldo,
benefits. Karon gikasuhan na ng NLRC ang ilang
agency damay ang DA.
That "the State may not be sued without its consent,"
reflects nothing less than a recognition of the
sovereign character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating
it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the
very ess ence of sovereignty.
Implied consent is conceded when the State itself
commences litigation, thus opening itself to a
counterclaim or when it enters into a contract.
In this situation, the government is deemed to have
descended to the level of the other contracting
party and to have divested itself of its sovereign
immunity.
Was there a waiver of immunity?
Not all contracts entered into by the government
operate as a waiver of its non-suability
You have to distinguish the kind of contract. If not for
business, but for sovereign function so pwede ma
invoke ang agency ang iyang state immunity. Pwede
niya ma-raise ang state immunity.
Not all contracts entered into by the government
operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction
must still be made between one which is executed in
the exercise of its sovereign function and another
which is done in its proprietary capacity.
Jus imperii v jus gestionis
And because the activities of states have multiplied, it
has been necessary to distinguish them — between
sovereign and governmental acts ( jure imperii)
and private, commercial and proprietary act ( jure
gestionisis).
In the latter case, dili na pwede kay you are not doing
a sovereign function.
The result is that State immunity now extends
only to acts jure imperii.
The restrictive application of State immunity is
proper only when the proceedings arise out of
commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign,
its commercial activities or economic affairs.
Stated differently, a state may be said to have
descended to the level of an individual and can this
be deemed to have actually given its consent to be
sued only when it enters into business contracts. It
does not apply where the contracts relates to the
exercise of its sovereign functions.
In this case, unsa man ang contract na gi-enter into?
It was a contract for security. Naay mga guards sa
ilang premises. Was that a business function?
No. it is not one done in proprietary function. Dili siya
commercial.
REPUBLIC V. ROQUE (2016)
So, there was this project that President Marcos. That was
a property to fulfill this project. Nag-enter ug compromise
agreement ang government ug kining owners. Karon
2005, wala gihapon na fulfill. So ang gusto sa mga
91
owners, I annul ang contract because wala man siya nag-
flourish
Realizing that the Republic had completely abandoned its
initial plan to use the land for President Marcos' National
Government Center Project, in 2005, the owners of the
property taken filed a complaint for the annullment of the
sale of the properties on the grounds of fraud, force,
intimidation, or undue influence. They also asserted their
right to buy back the properties at the same price at which
they sold them since the Republic failed to develop the
land.
Kasi you know, of course martial law, they were forced to
sell their property. The defense of the state was that they
are immune from suit.
The Republic argues that it is immune from suit.
In the instant case, the Department of Agriculture acted in
its capacity as a governmental entity when it entered
into the questioned contract; nor that it could have, in
fact, performed any act proprietary in character.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that when
the Republic entered into a compromise agreement
with a private person, it stripped itself of its immunity
from suit and placed itself on the same level as its
adversary.
Nag-enter siya into a contract kaya na divest siya from his
immunity. Take note of the qualification ha na if the state
enters into a contract in its sovereign capacity, pwede
magamit ang defense of state immunity. Kung commercial
dili pwede.
When the State enters into a contract which creates
mutual or reciprocal rights and obligations, the State may
be sued even without express consent.
Its consent to be sued is implied from its entry into the
contract and the Republic's breach grants the other
party the right to enforce or repudiate the contract.
In this case, the government entered into a contract with
the owners of the property to construct this center. And
when they contracted these owners, the Republic created
a negotiating team with these terms among others— naa
man diay right na mag buyback ang owners once ang
project dili mag push through. So in other words, bound
sila by that clause and provision in that agreement.
Unya unsaon man na sir dili man siya commercial? Pwede
ba siya defense? When this is a juri gestionis. In this case,
the court did not uphold. In fact, they did not discuss that
theory on the ground that defeat. If they would not allow
the claims of the owners here, there would be a more
injurious effect. It would result to an injustice.
And very heavy na exception ning resulting injustice. So
much so gi-apply sa court wherein the contract was not for
a commercial endeavor.
The Constitution provides that "the State may not be sued
without its consent." One instance when a suit is against
the State is when the Republic is sued by name, as in this
case.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the Court ruled that when
the Republic entered into a compromise agreement
with a private person, it stripped itself of its immunity
from suit and placed itself on the same level as its
adversary.
When the State enters into a contract which creates
mutual or reciprocal rights and obligations, the State may
be sued even without express consent.
Its consent to be sued is implied from its entry into the
contract and the Republic’s breach grants the other
party the right to enforce or repudiate the contract.
In the present case, the Republic entered into deeds of
sale with the respondents to construct the National
Government Center Project on the lots sold.
To facilitate the sale, the Republic created a negotiating
team to discuss the terms of the sale with the respondents.
The latter agreed to the negotiated sale on these alleged
conditions: (a) that they will have the right to repurchase
the properties if the NGC Project does not push through;
and (b) that the NGC Project will increase the market value
of their remaining properties.
Also, We reiterate that the doctrine of state immunity from
suit cannot serve to perpetrate an injustice on a citizen. If
we rule otherwise, we will be tolerating unfair dealing in
contract negotiation.
Malonesio vs. Jizmundo
G.R. No. 199239 (2016)
Facts:
On July 4, 2006, respondents Arturo M. Jizmundo filed
an action for Unlawful Detainer with Preliminary
Injunction against petitioner Percy Malonesio, in the
latter’s capacity as General Manager of the Air
Transportation Office (ATO).
Issue:
Can ATO (now the CAAP) invoke state immunity?
Ruling:
State immunity from suit may be waived by general or
special law. The special law can take the form of the
original character of the incorporated government
agency.
92

Jurisprudence is replete with examples of incorporated
government agencies which were ruled not entitled to
invoke immunity from suit, owing the provisions in their
charters manifesting their consent to be sued.
Therefore, by virtue of the express provision of Section
23 (a) of Republic Act No. 9497, the CAAP also does not
enjoy immunity from suit.
Philippine Textile vs. CA
G.R. No. 223319 (2019)
Facts:
E.A. Ramirez, a construction company, filed before the
RTC a Complaint for Breach of Contract with Damages
(Complaint) against Philippine Textile Research Institute
(PTRI for breaching the contract for the Rehabilitation of
Electrical Facilities of PTRI Main Building and Three Pilot
Plants.
PTRI, et. al., through the OSG, filed a Motion to Dismiss,
invoking the privilege of state immunity from suit. They
asserted that PTRI is an agency of the Department of
Science and Technology (DOST) and thus cannot be sued
without the consent of the State. PTRI alleged that the
immunity extended to the impleaded employees of PTRI
since they were sued while they were performing official or
governmental functions.
Ruling:
PTRI, et. al., are not immune from suit.
It is not disputed that PTRI is an unincorporated national
government agency. The PTRI was created under
Resolution NSDB 246 RJ in accordance with R.A. 4086.
Subsequently, the Administrative Code identified the PTRI
as an institute of the DOST. The PTRI has the mandate
of conducting applied research and development for the
textile industry sector, undertaking the transfer of
completed research to end-users or via linkage units of
other government agencies, and undertaking technical
services and providing training programs.
Being an unincorporated government agency that
exercises a governmental function, ordinarily, the PTRI
enjoys immunity from suit.
Further, the employees of PTRI acting in their official
capacity likewise enjoy this immunity from suit, as public
officials may not be sued for acts done in the performance
of their official functions or within the scope of their
authority.
However, the rule on State immunity from suit is not
absolute. The State may be sued with its consent. The
State’s consent to be sued may be given either expressly
or impliedly.
Express consent may be made through a general law
or a special law. The general law waiving the immunity
of the state from suit is found in Act No. 3083, where
the Philippine government consents and submits to be
sued upon any money claim involving liability arising from
contract, express or implied, which could serve as a basis
of civil action between private parties.
General Waiver here
Applying the foregoing, it is not disputed that PTRI entered
into a Contract of Works for the Rehabilitation of Electrical
Facilities of PTRI Main Building and Three Pilot plants,
with B.A. Ramirez. It is likewise not disputed that the
cause of action of E.A. Ramirez’s Complaint is the alleged
breach of the subject Contract. In other words, PTRI is
being sued upon a claim involving liability arising from the
contract.
Hence, the general law on the waiver of immunity from suit
finds application.
Implied Consent
Furthermore, there is implied consent on the part of the
State to be subjected to suit when the State enters into a
contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to
have descended to the level of the other contracting party
and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity.
However, not all contracts entered into by the government
operate as a waiver of its non-suability; distinction must
still be made between one which is executed in the
exercise of its sovereign functions and another which is
done in its proprietary capacity.
Here, not only did PTRI descend to the level of a
contracting party by entering into the subject Contract,
93
PTRI also manifested unequivocally its consent to be officers, the Auditor General shall act and decide
subjected to suit with respect to disputes arising from the the same within sixty days, exclusive of Sundays
subject Contract. and holidays, after their presentation.

Further, the subject contract was clearly not executed in

the exercise of PTRI’s governmental function of aiding the
textile industry. The subject contract dealt solely with the
rehabilitation works of electrical facilities of PTRI’s
buildings.
Section 2. The party aggrieved by the final decision
of the Auditor General in the settlement of an account
for claim may, within thirty days from receipt of the
decision, take an appeal in writing: …

Result to injustice exception c) To the Supreme Court of the Philippines if the

appellant is a private person or entity.
In any case, the Court has held that the State’s Immunity
from suit may be shelved when the Court is convinced that Fixes the time within which the Auditor General can
its stubborn observance will lead to the subversion of the render decisions in all cases involving the settlement
ends of justice. Likewise, the doctrine of governmental
of accounts and claims.
immunity from suit cannot serve as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice on a citizen.
The party aggrieved by the final decision of the
Auditor General can go to, among others in this CA
———-
327, sa Supreme Court.
MONEY CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE
Act No. 3083 provides a party wanting to sue the
state for a money claim the ability to do so because
- ACT No. 3083, or “AN ACT DEFENDING
that law waived the state immunity from money
THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE
claims. But it also provides for the procedure and that
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
is to present your claim first before the Auditor
ISLAND MAY BE SUED”
General which is now COA.
Section 1. Complaint against Government.
Under CA 327, the period to present your claim
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Government
before the COA was prescribed.
of the Philippine Islands hereby consents and
How long? 60 days from the claim and if dili siya
submits to be sued upon any MONEYED claim
happy sa decision ni COA, you can elevate it to the
involving liability arising from contract, expressed ,
Supreme Court. That is the time na mu-sue. Mao na
which could serve as a basis of civil action between
na iyang suit against the State before the Supreme
private parties.
Court. So in other words, you cannot shortcut the
process in a money claim.
Section 2. A person desiring to avail himself of the
privilege herein conferred must show that he has
presented his claim to the Insular Auditor and that PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1445
the latter did not decide the same within 2
months from the date of its presentation.
- Government Auditing Code of the Philippines
COMMONWEALTH ACT 327
Section 26. General jurisdiction. The authority and
powers of the Commission shall extend to and
comprehend all matters relating to … the audit
- Amendment to Act No. 3083
and settlement of the accounts of all persons
respecting funds or property received or held by them
Section 1. In all cases involving the settlement of
in an accountable capacity, as well as the
accounts or claims, other than those of accountable
94
examination, audit, and settlement of all debts
and claims of any sort due from or owing to the
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies
and instrumentalities.
The authority and powers of the Commission is to
determine if the government has an obligation
against the party.
The same law provides that you can appeal from the
decision of the COA. The party aggrieved by any
decision or ruling of the Commission may, within 30
days from his receipt of a copy thereof, appeal on
certiorari to the Supreme Court in the manner
provided by law and the Rules of Court.
PD 1445 reinforces the provisions of the earlier laws
that you can file your claim before the COA and the
COA has the power to decide on it and if you are not
happy with the decision of the COA, you can appeal
on certiorari to the Supreme Court in the manner
provided by law and the Rules of Court. (Section 50)
RULES OF COURT
What is a certiorari? What is the procedure under the
Rules of Court?
Under Rule 64, which provides for the review of
judgement, final orders or resolutions of the
COMELEC and the COA. This is the rule we should
follow.
What is the procedure?
So niadto na ka sa COA, nagpresent na ka sa imong
money claim, gi-adjudge na ni COA na you are not
entitled to this money claim; therefore, the case is
dismissed. Di ka happy sa decision or nagrender siya
ug decision pero dili enough sa imo ang gi-award na
money or kulang sa imuha, gusto nimo ipachange
ang decision, musaka kag kaso sa Supreme Court,
under Rule 64.
What is the mode of review? What petition/s should
you file?
A judgement of final order or resolution of the
Commission on Elections and the Commission on
Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the
Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65.
From Rule 64, it provides for the rule kung unsa ang
mag govern. This allows you to go to the Supreme
Court by way of this Rule 65. So paghuman nimog
pasa sa Rule 64, pasa ka karon sa Rule 65.
Anyway, you also have a deadline. Your petition for
certiorari should be filed within 30 days from notice of
the judgement or final order or resolution sought to
be reviewed.
So kung madawat na nimo tung order, wala ka ni-
appeal within that period allowed, naging final na
lang siya kay naa kay 30 days from notice of the
judgement or final order or resolution nga mufile
aning petition before the Supreme Court.
What is in Rule 65?
Rule 65 (Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus)
Section 1. Petition for certiorari. - When any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions (such as the COA) has acted without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition
in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty
and praying that judgement be rendered annulling or
modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or
officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law
and justice may require.
You are ascribing. This is what you should do when
you file a petition for certiorari ascribing to the COA
that it gravely abused its discretion when it rendered
that unfavorable decision against you.
For money claims, present it first to the COA. The
COA will decide if your claim is meritorious.
95
The cases discussed concerns issues that involve
the government’s non-payment for the services or
expropriations
SAYSON vs SINGSON
54 SCRA 282 (1973)
It is apparent that respondent Singson’s cause of action is
a money claim against the government. Apparently, he
was unable to follow the procedure.
It is a money claim against the government, for the
payment of the alleged balance of the cost of spare parts
supplied by him to the Bureau of Public Highways. So
contractor ni siya or supplier unya wala siya gibayaran sa
gobyerno.
Assuming the validity of such claim, the claim is void for
the cause or consideration is contrary to law and
mandamus is not the remedy to enforce the collection of
such claim against the State but the proper remedy is an
ordinary action for specific performance.
Very complicated stuff. However, ang gihimo man gud niya
is nagfile siya ug case against the State for collection of
sum of money to compel it to perform its obligation in this
case by way of a mandamus case. Mandamus - compel
this agency or this person to do a duty. Naa siyay money
claim, niadto siya sa Court, nagfile ug mandamus para
macompel ni si agency na mubayad.
Ana ang Supreme Court, the suit disguised as one for
mandamus to compel the Auditors to approve the
vouchers for payment is actually a suit against the state
which cannot prosper or to be entertained by the Court
except with the consent of the State. So, this is actually a
suit against the State and it is in fact a money claim.
What should he have done?
He should have filed this claim to the general auditing
office under CA 327 which prescribes the conditions under
which money claims against the government may be filed.
In other words, mali ang remedy na iyang gigamit in this
case. Ni-diretso siya sa court by way of a petition for
mandamus. Because the procedure is laid down by the
earlier laws that we have mentioned when we talk about
money claims against the state.
CA 327 is quite explicit. You go to the Auditor General
(COA) who will decide the same within 60 days and
thereafter, if happy siya, wala’y problema. Ipakita niya sa
agency na naa na siyay ruling from COA, “comply with
this.” Pero if dili siya happy sa decision then pwede niya
isaka sa Supreme Court. In that way, he is actually now
suing the state. And that is the process that should be
done if it is a money claim.
The party aggrieved by the final decision of the Auditor
General in the settlement of an account or claim may,
within 30 days from receipt of the decision take an appeal
in writing:
A) To the President of the United States, pending the final
and complete withdrawal of her sovereignty over the
Philippines, or
B) To the president of the Philippines, or
C) To the Supreme Court of the Philippines if the appellant
is a private person or entity.
A and B were amended by PD 1445. The next remedy
after you go to the Auditor General or COA, you go to the
Supreme Court.
He did not do that kay nidiretso siya sa Court by way of a
mandamus.
It is true that once consent is secured, an action may be
filed. Consent is given by the State here by way of the
laws na mga gimention nato. So you can actually sue this
government agency after you follow the procedure and
before the Supreme Court.
And mao tung giprovide sa mga balaod. Gi-allow ka to sue
the state by those laws pero mufollow ka sa procedure.
That can be done by the State because ang paghatag niya
sa iyang consent to be sued is naa siyay gi-lay down na
procedure. Also, the proper forum in the Judicial hierarchy
can be specified if thereafter an appeal would be taken by
the party aggrieved. Hence, there was no ruling of the
Auditor General. In other words, premature iyang claim.
UP vs DIZON
G.R. No. 171182 (2012)
Facts:
The University of the Philippines (UP) entered into a
General Construction Agreement with Stern Builders
Corporation for the construction of the extension
building and the renovation of the College of Arts of
the UPLB.
96
UP failed to pay the billing, prompting Stern Builders
and Dela Cruz to sue UP and its officials to collect
the unpaid billing and to recover various damages
before the RTC. RTC rendered a decision, ordering
UP to pay.
The CA denied the appeal, as well as the SC. The
decision became final and executory. UP is now
liable to pay the contractor.
Stern Builders and dela Cruz filed in the RTC their
motions for execution. On June 11, 2003, the RTC
granted another motion for execution filed on May 9,
2003. On June 23, and July 25, respectively, the
sheriff served notices of the garnishment on the UP’s
depository banks, so to speak, ang kwarta sa UP sa
mga bangko para isatisfy ang claim aning contractor.
The UP is claiming now among others that:
1) It is immune from suit; and
2) Its properties and funds being public in character
cannot be garnished.
Ruling:
COA must adjudicate private respondent’s’ claim
before execution should proceed.
The execution of the monetary judgment against the
UP was within the primary jurisdiction of the COA.
This was express;y provided in Section 26 of the
Presidential Decree No. 1445.
But is it not that the judgment was already final and
executory?
It was of no moment that a final and executory
decision already validated the claim against the
UP. The settlement of the monetary claim was
still subject to the primary jurisdiction of the COA
despite the final decision of the RTC having
already validated their claim.
As such, Stern Builders and dela Cruz as the
claimants had no alternative except to first seek the
approval of the COA of their monetary claim.
It is settled in jurisprudence that upon determination
of State liability, the prosecution, enforcement or
satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in
accordance with the rules and procedures in PD
1445.
All money claims against the Government must first
be filed with the Commission on Audit which must act
upon within sixty days. Rejection of the claim will
authorize the claimant to elevate the matter to the SC
on certiorari (Rule 65), and in effect, sue the State.
PUREFOODS v. NPC
GR No. 202044 (2017)
Facts:
On November 5, 1997, NAPOCOR filed an action for expropriation
against Purefoods before the RTC. Gikuha iyang property, so the State
has a correlative obligation to pay the market value of the said property.
The RTC granted the petition for expropriation and ordered payment of
just compensation to Purefoods. Purefoods filed a Motion for Execution
with the RTC. The trial court granted the motion. But in a later Order, it
recalled and set aside the previous one. Instead, the court directed
Purefoods to file a money claim with the COA.
Petitioner’s argument:
Purefoods argued that the court is wrong. Since it has been ruled with
finality that NAPOCOR is liable for the payment of just compensation in
favor of Purefoods, execution should follow as a matter of right.
Ruling:
Purefoods is wrong. The determination of State liability, by itself, does
not translate to execution. On the other hand, upon a determination of
state liability, the satisfaction thereof must still be pursued following PD
1445.
This is a money claim filed against the government which must first be
filed with COA, which must act on it within 60 days. The rejection of the
claim authorizes the claimant to elevate the matter to the Supreme
Court on certiorari.
Notes: Normally, if there is an expropriation case and the just
compensation has been determined, wala na unta’y issue. Bayaran na
dapat ang owners sa property. But here, it did not happen.
So the SC said this is a money claim, even if it is an expropriation case.
Even if the State itself initiated the complaint by way of
expropriation to claim the payment, you have to pursue a money
claim against the government.
NEA v. Morales is applicable to the present case. Before execution may
proceed against a GOCC, a claim for the payment of the judgment
award must first be filed with COA.
In this case, the fact that NAPOCOR is a GOCC is
beyond debate. It has a juridical personality separate and
distinct from that of the government, with the capacity to
sue and be sued.
97
 MMDA VS CONSUNJI
Therefore, as correctly held by the CA, a writ of GR No. 222423 (Feb. 20, 2019)
execution could not be issued against the funds of
NAPOCOR as Purefoods must first file a claim with
COA for the payment of the judgment award.

It is immaterial that this case involves eminent domain,

while NEA v. Morales involved a money claim of
employees against their employer. This Court has
applied the “no execution” rule to eminent domain cases.

REPUBLIC v. FETALVERO
GR No. 198008 (2019)
Facts:
The Republic, through the OSG, filed an expropriation case against
Fetalvero. Eventually, the Republic, through Atty. Larea of DPWH,
entered into a Compromise Agreement with Fetalvero before the
Philippine Mediation Center. The Compromise Agreement was
approved, so Fetalvero went to court for the execution of the
Agreement.

This was opposed by the OSG since the Agreement did not bind the
Republic since it was not forwarded to the OSG for review. The court,
however, granted the motion for execution.

So, the Republic went to the SC.

Ruling:
The Republic is bound by the Compromise Agreement. Fetalvero is
legally entitled to his money claim. However, he still has to go through
the appropriate procedure for making a claim against the Government.

It is settled that upon determination of State liability, the prosecution,

enforcement or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in accordance
with the rules laid down in PD 1445. All money claims against the
Government must be filed with the COA which must act upon it within
60 days.

Rejection of the claim will authorize the claimant to elevate the matter
to the SC on certiorari and in effect, sue the State.

Notes: The abovementioned is the procedure to file a money claim,

including those that were filed for expropriation and compromise
agreements originating from an expropriation case.

Under CA 327, as amended by Sec. 26 of PD 1445, it is the COA which

has the primary jurisdiction to examine, audit and settle “all debts and
claims of any sort” due from or owing the Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities, including GOCCs and
their subsidiaries.

Here, Fetalvero failed to show that he first raised his claim before the
procedural step, respondent’s
COA. Without this necessary
money claim cannot be entertained by the courts through
a writ of execution.

98
Facts:
MMDA, in coordination with the Greater Metro Manila Solid Waste
Management Committee, conducted a selection process for the
development and operation by a private entity of a new sanitary landfill
for the next 25 years under the Build-Operate-Own (BOO) scheme. The
facility was intended to replace the San Mateo landfill after it was
closed on 31 December 2000.
MMDA Chairman Binay, Isidro A. Consunji for respondent DMCI and
Leopoldo T. Sanchez for respondent R-II Builders executed a contract
denominated as "Contract for the Development, Operation and
Maintenance of Interim Integrated Waste Management Facility for
Metropolitan Manila" on 4 January 2001.
DMCI worked under the contract with the supervision of the MMDA.
Meanwhile, two TROs were issued by the RTC placing the operation on
hold. To recover their incurred expenses under the contract, DMCI
demanded from the MMDA P20,123,190.00 as reasonable
reimbursement, claiming that they spent said amount until they were
forced to stop their operations due to the TROS.
MMDA rejected the claim. DMCI filed with the trial court a Complaint
dated Sept. 12, 2007 for sum of money based on quantum meruit with
damages against the MMDA.
The trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, held that DMCI is
entitled to reimbursement. It ruled that they have the right to be
compensated for the partial execution of the project applying the
principle of quantum meruit.
Issue:
1. Whether DMCI and R-II Builders are entitled to recover the
expenses they incurred based on quantum meruit; and
2. Whether the COA has primary jurisdiction over the present
case.
Ruling:
There is no dispute that MMDA is a government agency in charge of
"those services which have metro-wide impact and transcend local
political boundaries or entail huge expenditures such that it
would not be viable for said services to be provided by the
individual local government units (LGUs) comprising
Metropolitan Manila."17 There is also no dispute that
respondents are claiming from MMDA the total amount of
P19,920,936.17 representing expenses allegedly incurred for
the partial execution of the interim waste management project
for Metro Manila. Since what is involved is a specific money
claim against a government agency, it is clearly within the
jurisdiction of the COA.
In Melchor v. COA, the Court directed the COA to allow in post-
audit the payment of P344,430.80 for the work done by the
contractor. The COA was "likewise directed to determine on a
quantum meruit basis the value of the extra works done, and
after such determination, to disallow in post-audit the excess
to the contractor.
payment, if any, made by the petitioner
The petitioner shall be personally liable for any such
excess payment."
SUIT AGAINST GOCCS
NHA VS HEIRS OF GUiVELONDO
GR No. 154411 (June 19, 2003)
Facts:
On February 23, 1999, petitioner National Housing Authority filed with
the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 11, an Amended
Complaint for eminent domain against Associacion Benevola de Cebu,
Engracia Urot and the Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo for the purpose of the
public use of Socialized housing.
On November 12, 1999, the Heirs of Isidro Guivelondo filed a
Manifestation stating that they were waiving their objections to NHA’s
power to expropriate their properties. Thus an order of execution has
been granted and the court already appointed commissioners to
determine the amount for just compensation
On April 17, 2000, the Commissioners submitted their report wherein
they recommended that the just compensation of the subject properties
be fixed at P11,200.00 per square meter wherein a partial judgment
has been rendered.
After the report on the just compensation has completed, both parties
filed an MR on the amount for the just compensation stating that it has
no adequate basis and support. Both MR was denied by the court.
While the judgment has been rendered in the RTC and an entry of
judgment and the motion for execution has been issued, NHA filed a
petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The CA denied the petition
on the ground that the Partial Judgment and Omnibus Order became
final and executory when petitioner failed to appeal the same.
Wherefore, the Petitioner NHA filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the state can be compelled and coerced by the
courts to continue with its inherent power of eminent domain.
2. Whether or not judgment has become final and executory and if
estoppel or laches applies to government.
3. Whether or not writs of execution and garnishment may be
issued against the state in an expropriation where in the exercise of power of
eminent domain will not serve public use or purpose
Ruling:
The state as represented by the NHA for housing project can continue its inherent
power of eminent domain provided that the just compensation for the property
sought is taken. After the rendition of such order the plaintiff shouldn’t be
permitted to dismiss or discontinue such proceedings except on such terms of the
court be equitable.
The order was final after the non-appealing of the petitioner as the lawful right to
expropriate the properties of respondent heirs of Guivelondo.
99
 Petitioner NHA are not exempt from garnishment or execution, although it is
public in character since it is arbitrary and capricious for a government
entity to initiate expropriation proceedings that seize a private owner’s
property.
Having a juridical personality separate and distinct from the government,
the funds of such government-owned and controlled corporations and non-
corporate agency, although considered public in character, are not
exempt from garnishment.
Hence, it is clear that the funds of the petitioner NHA are not exempt
from garnishment or execution.
Petition was DENIED and the trial court’s decision denying petitioner’s
motion to dismiss expropriation proceeding was AFFIRMED. Its
injunctive relief against the levy and garnishment of its funds
and personal properties was also DENIED. The temporary
Restraining Order was LIFTED.
Why does a suit against an unincorporated
government agency require state consent?
When a suit is directed against said unincorporated
government agency which, because it is
unincorporated, possesses no juridical personality of
its own, the suit is against the agency’s principal and
thus, against the State itself.
This requires the State’s consent whether implied or
express.
Why are GOCCS not exempt from suit?
If the Government conducts a business through
either a government-owned and controlled
corporation (examples are DBP, NHA) or a non-
corporate agency set up primarily for a business
purposes, the entity enjoys no immunity from suit
even if there is no express grant of authority to “sue
or be sued”. This is so because when the
government enters into commercial business, it
abandons its sovereign capacity and is to be
treated like any other corporation.
Having a juridical personality distinct and separate
from the State, the funds of GOCCs can be
garnished and also their properties. (Philippine Rock
Industries, Inc Vs. Board of Liquidators)
Generally, funds and properties of the government
cannot be the object of garnishment proceedings
even if the consent to be sued had been previously
granted and the State liability adjudged.
The universal rule that where the State gives its
consent to be sued by private parties either by
general or special law, and it may limit claimants
action only up to the completion of proceedings
anterior to the state of execution and that the power
of the Courts ends when the judgment is rendered,
since government funds and properties may not be
seized under the writs of execution or garnishment to
satisfy such judgments, is based on obvious
considerations of public policy.
IMPLIED CONSENT
1. When the State commences the litigation.
It becomes vulnerable to a counterclaim.
Intervention by the State would constitute
commencement of litigation
2. When the state enters into business
contract. (Take note of the RESTRICTIVE
DOCTRINE OF STATE IMMUNITY)
3. When it accepts conditional donations.
DECS V Onate
4. When it takes over private property
without compensation
5. In cases of implied contracts
6. Gross negligence
7. When the claim of immunity is inequitable
– e.g., in just compensation cases or when
quantum meruit applies
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ENTERS INTO
BUSINESS CONTRACT
PTA VS. PGDEI
668 SCRA 406 (2006)
The Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA) cannot
invoke State immunity from suit since it was acting
in a proprietor character.
PTA also erred in invoking state immunity simply
because it is a government entity.
The application of state immunity is proper only
100
when the proceedings arise out of sovereign
transactions and not in cases of commercial
activities or economic affairs. The State, in entering
into a business contract, descends to the level of an
individual and is deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be sued.
Here, since the Intramuros Golf Course Expansion
Projects partakes of a proprietary character entered
into between PTA and PHILGOLD, the PTA cannot
avoid its financial liability by merely invoking immunity
from suit.
INEQUITABLE CLAIM TO IMMUNITY
EPG CONSTRUCTION v. VIGILAR
354 SCRA 566 (2001)
A private party may recover from the State on
the basis of quantum meruit
In Eslao vs. Commission on Audit, this Court
likewise allowed recovery by the contractor on the
basis of quantum meruit
where payment is based on quantum meruit, the
amount of recovery would only be the
reasonable value of the thing or services
rendered regardless of any agreement as to
value.
To begin with, petitioners-contractors assented
and agreed to undertake additional
constructions for the completion of the housing
units, BELIEVING IN GOOD FAITH AND IN THE
INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT AND, IN
EFFECT, THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL THAT
APPROPRIATIONS TO COVER THE
ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND
COMPLETION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS
HOUSING PROJECT WOULD BE AVAILABLE
AND FORTHCOMING.
Equally important is the glaring fact that the
construction of the housing units had already been
completed by petitioners-contractors and the
subject housing units had been, since their
completion, under the control and disposition of the
government pursuant to its public works housing
project.
To our mind, it would be the apex of injustice and
highly inequitable for us to defeat petitioners-
contractors right to be duly compensated for
actual work performed and services rendered,
where both the government and the public
have, for years, received and accepted benefits
from said housing project and reaped the fruits
of petitioners-contractors honest toil and labor.
ACCORDINGLY, the Commission on Audit is
hereby directed to determine and ascertain with
dispatch, on a quantum meruit basis, the total
compensation due to petitioners-contractors for the
additional constructions on the housing project and
to allow payment thereof upon the completion of
said determination.
RP v. UNIMEX
The Court cannot turn a blind eye to BOC's
ineptitude and gross negligence in the
safekeeping of respondent's goods. We are not
likewise unaware of its lackadaisical attitude in
failing to provide a cogent explanation on the goods'
disappearance, considering that they were in its
custody and that they were in fact the subject of
litigation. The situation does not allow us to reject
respondent's claim on the mere invocation of the
doctrine of state immunity. Succinctly, the doctrine
must be fairly observed and the State should not
avail itself of this prerogative to take undue
advantage of parties that may have legitimate
claims against it.
DOTC v. SPOUSES ABECINA
GR No. 206484 (2016)
This Court has long established in that the doctrine
of State immunity cannot serve as an instrument
for perpetrating an injustice to a citizen.
The Constitution identifies the limitations to the
awesome and near-limitless powers of the State.
Chief among these limitations are the principles that
101
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law and that private
property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.
The State may not be sued without its consent. This
fundamental doctrine stems from the principle that
there can be no legal right against the authority
which makes the law on which the right depends.
But as the principle itself implies, the doctrine of
state immunity is not absolute. The State may waive
its cloak of immunity and the waiver may be made
expressly or by implication.
Presently, state immunity restrictively extends only
to acts jure imperil while acts jure gestionis are
considered as a waiver of immunity.
The DOTC encroached on the respondents'
properties when it constructed the local telephone
exchange in Daet, Camarines Norte. We have no
doubt that the DOTC was carrying out a sovereign
function. Therefore, these are acts jure imperii
that fall within the cloak of state immunity.
However, as the Spouses repeatedly pointed out,
this Court has long established that the doctrine of
state immunity cannot serve as an instrument for
perpetrating an injustice to a citizen.
The Constitution identifies the limitations to the
awesome and near-limitless powers of the State.
Chief among these limitations are the principles that
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law and that private
property shall not be taken for public use without
just compensation.
Consequently, our laws require that the State's
power of eminent domain shall be exercised
through expropriation proceedings in court.
Whenever private property is taken for public use, it
becomes the ministerial duty of the concerned
office or agency to initiate expropriation
proceedings.
By necessary implication, the filing of a
complaint for expropriation is a waiver of State
immunity.
Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances,
Delegation of Powers.
We start with our discussion on Citizenship, a very
important topic.
Okay, so let's continue with separation of powers.
What is it?
Now we know last meeting that it is required, that for
this nation, for this democracy to work, that the
powers of government cannot be concentrated in one
person, it must be divided to avoid concentration of
these powers in any one branch.
It will avoid any single branch from lording its power
over other branches or the citizenry, it must be
wielded by co-equal branches of the government.
So these three, I'd like to emphasize this. The
Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. These
are the three great branches and these powers
cannot be exercised by one individual otherwise
they'd be abused. The power of legislation, the power
of execution and of course the power to check if the
execution, if the legislation is not unconstitutional or
is consistent with the constitution that is lodged in the
Judiciary.
It cannot be exercised by one person.
The separation of powers requires that each branch
of the government is separate.
The Executive branch deals with the execution of the
law, Legislature makes the laws, the Judiciary
resolves controversies.
Now in order to be effective in their functions they will
have to be independent. One cannot be controlled by
the other. They have the power to check each other.
So in the constitution we have what are called the
checks and balances. The reason they are separated
is in order for each branch to be able to check if one
is doing its job whether the other is transgressing the
constitution among other things. So each must be
independent.
Separate so that no entity or person can exercise all
of the powers. And in their separation they must be
independent because they are tasked to check each
other otherwise it will result in the inability of one
branch og government ot check the arbitrary or slef-
interest assertion of others or the other branch.
So their independence is a required characteristic.
102

RE:COA OPINION (2012)
Now remember these three branches, they are not the only
agencies in the Constitution, there are other entities in the
constitution that can exercise checks and balances to these three
branches.
Such as the Constitutional Commission, another is the
Ombudsman, so one of these commissions is the COA, the
Commission on Audit.
One of its functions is to audit, to conduct post-audit examination
on Constitutional bodies that are granted with fiscal autonomy,
like the Supreme Court.
It checks if there is proper spending of public funds.
However, in this case there is a deviation in the valuation of
properties, using the Supreme Court Formula and COA formula.
There was an undervaluing of properties, the Supreme Court
said YES the COA has the authority to conduct post-audit
evaluations but this must be read not only in light of he Courts
fiscal autonomy but also in relation to its judicial independence.
Remember, as we emphasized earlier, in order for these
branches of government to be able co check each other
effectively they have to be independent. And one of the
mechanisms in the constitution that enhances the independence
of these constitutional bodies particularly the Supreme Court is
this fiscal autonomy. With we will discuss eventually.
Now, it was emphasized in the Court, the relation of the
Separation of powers and Judicial independence. it is a
fundamental principle in our system of government. As we said
last meeting. There is no provision in the constitution saying that
'these powers are separate and distinct from each other.
It obtains not through express provision in the Constitution but by
actual division in our constitution. Articles VI, VII and VIII.
Of course, the Constitutional Commission and the Ombudsman,
and the others.
You know that they are places in separate articles. Again as with
the earlier case of Angara, each department of the government
has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is
supreme within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the
fact that the three powers are to be kept separate and distinct
that the Constitution intended for them to be absolutely
unrestrained and independent from each other.
The constitution has provided for an elaborate system of checks
and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the
various departments of the government. And the Judiciary in turn,
with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks the
other departments i the exercise of its power to determine the
law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if
violative of the Constitution.
So one of the checks and balances mechanisms of the
Constition, to check if these other two branches are violating the
Constitution or not? That is the task of the Supreme Court.
Notice the purpose of the independence. TO AVOID
concentration of these powers in one branch so that no individual
or branch would exercise its power over the other branches or
the citizenry. So the power must be wielded by co-equal
branches of the government that are equally capable of
independent action.
And as we emphasize, they need to be independent entities.
They cannot be influenced. Otherwise they will have lessened
ability to check each other.
Here the Judicial independence was emphasized. THey can only
be independent if judges can freely exercise their mandate to
resolve justiciable disputes, while the judicial branch as a whole,
should work in the discharge of its constitutional functions free
from restraints and influence from other branches, save only for
those imposed by the Constitution itself.
It is importance that you understand Separation, Checks and
Balances, and the requirement that they must be independent
from each other
GARCIA vs DRILON (2013)
The challenge against the validity of the Anti-
VAWC law, 9262, because the husband here was
filed against by his wife under the VAWC law and
he went to the Supreme Court challenging the
validity of this law on the grounds that it violates
equal protection. This was discussed in Court, does
it have the validity to check on the wisdon of this
law?
The husbands reasoning is that it is
disadvantageous to the men. The Supreme Court
answered that as a rule it would not include on the
wisdom of the Legislature on the passing of laws.
Including RA 9262.
Courts themselves are not concerned with the
wisdom, justice, policy, or expediency of a statute.
Hence, we dare not venture into the real
motivatoins and wisdom of the members of
Congress in limiting the protection against violence
and abuse under R.A. 9262 to women and children
only.
But if there is a legal issue presented before the
court, like asserting its unconstitutionality, the court
may take notice. Because it is a legal issue.
But if we talk about why we had to adopt a law, or if
it was wise to adopt it, the matter is beyond the
matters of the Court.
The Law cannot be challenged on grounds of being
unwise or on it being not good policy. Because
Congress has made a choice, and it is not in the
power or prerogative of the Court to supplant or
replace its judgment.
The choice may be perceives as erroneous but
even then, the remedy against it is to seek its
amendment or repeal by the legislative.
Not by way of Judicial legislation but rather by
amendment or repeal of the law.
It is the Legislative that determines the necessity,
adequacy, wisdom and expediency of the law. We
only step in when there is a violation of the
Constitution. The Court emphasized that it could not
legislate. If you want the Law changed you go to
103
Congress.
CORPUZ vs People
The person was charged with estafa, the penalties
were in accordance with the Revised Penal Code.
The offense was committed in the 2000's. There
has been inflation since. Now here, using the values
under the RPC a penalty was imposed accordingly.
The accused put forward that the Court should
adjust its penalties according to the inflation rate.
Value of money in the 1930's is not the same as
now.
There seems to be a perceived injustice brought
aobut by the range of penalties that the courts
continue to impose on crimed against properties
committed today, based on the amount of damage
measured by the value of money eighty years ago
in 1932. However the Courts said that they cannot
modify the same ranfe of penalties because that
would constitute judicial legislation.
What the legislatures perceived failure in amending
the penalties provided for in the said crimes cannot
be remedied through this Court's decisions, as that
would be encroaching upon the power of aonther
branch of the government.
You cannot change the valuation of the money itself
by way of a court action praying that the provision
be unconstitutional.
Rather you go to Congress so that the provision can
be amended accordingly. And they have been, the
money Values have been updated in the RPC to
match with recent times.
The solution to the present controversy could not be
solved by merely adjusting the questoined monetart
values to the present value of monty based only on
the current inflatoin rate. There are other factors
and variables that need to be taken into
consideration, researched and deliberated upon
before the said values could be accurately and
properly adjusted.
The solution is not Judicial but Legislative.
MAMISCAL vs ABDULLAH
The discussion on Separation of Powers here is in
the Concurring Opinion of Justice Leonen,.
For the FACTS, there here is Abdullah, a Clerk of
Court of the Shari'a Court and he was
administratively charged before the Supreme Court
because of his acts in connectoin with the
registration of the Divorce between Mamiscal and
Adelaidah.
The Supreme Court said that they did not have
jurisdiction to impose the proper disciplinary action
on this person.
The Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to
impose the proper disciplinary action against civil
registrars.
Because in the act he was charged with, he was
acting as a Circuit Registrar. Now the Clerk of Court
of the Sharia court enjoys two privileges. That of
wearing two hats: First, as Clerk of Court of the
Shari'a Circuit Court and second, as Circuit
Registrar within his territorial jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court said that they did not have
administrative jurisdiction over that person when he
acted in that capacity. Had he acted as a Clerk of
Court the Supreme Court could have taken
jurisdiction over this case.
But the act involved here is pursuant to this
person’s functions as a civil registrar, which the
Court said it did not have the power to discipline.
The Court goes not have jurisdiction to impose the
proper disciplinary action against civil registrars.
While he is undoubtedly a member of the Judiciary
as Clerk of Court of the Shari'a Circuit Court, a
review of the subject complaint reveals that
Mamiscal seeks to hold Abdullah liable for
registering the divorce and issuing the CRD
pursuant to his duties as Circuit Registrar of Muslim
divorces.
Ana ang SC, we do not have the power to discipline
him.
So kinsa karon ang naay power? Ana ang SC, the
municipal and city mayors of the respective local
gov’t units and the Civil Service Commission pursuit
kato sa iyang acts as civil registrar.
Ana si Justice Leonen, tama. The statutory
provisions which vest executive functions in clerk of
cour of the Sharia Circuit Courts dangerously
104
transgress the fundamental constitutional
boundaries between departments. It creates an
enclave within the judiciary that is not subject to the
disciplinary power of this court but of executive
bodies.
Carpio Morales vs. CA
Kani gi challenge ni Ombudsman Carpio Morales
ang action sa CA kay si Binay diri, the son of
Jejomar Binay, gi kasuhan sa Obmudsman,
pending pa ang case, then naay preventive
suspension ipaserve sa iyaha pero wala na serve.
So katung na penalized na siya, niadto karon si
Binay, Jr. sa CA to challenge the action of the
Office of the Ombudsman. The CA here issued a
TRO or an injunction to stop the acts of the
Ombudsman. So because of this, niadto si
Ombudsman kay SC. Ana sya, under the law (RA
6770, Sec 14), it prohibits courts including the CA
from extending provisional injunctive relief to
delay any investigation conducted by her office
(except SC).
Now, can the Ombudsman prohibit all courts,
except SC from issuing provisional writes of
injunction? The court emphasized here the
separation of powers so that no branch of the
government will encroach on the domain of the
others. If so, there is a violation of the doctrine
which is inconsistent with the constitution as the
constitution itself lays down, the separation of
powers doctrine. In particular, there is a violation
of the principle when there is impermissible (a)
interference with and/or (b) assumption of another
department’s functions.
So in this case, SC said there is a violation.
Under Article VIII, Sec 1 of the 1987 Constitution
the SC shall have the power to (Section 5)
promulgate rules concerning the protection
and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice and procedures in all
courts. Congress on the other hand, has the
power to, in relation sa courts, to define,
prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of all
courts, except that it may not deprive the SC
of its jurisdiction over cases enumerated in
Sec 5.
When a court has subject matter jurisdiction over
a particular case, said court may then exercise its
jurisdiction acquired over the case which is called
judicial power. So when it acquires a jurisdiction
over a case, the totality of powers a court
exercises when it assumes jurisdiction and hears
or decide on a case in conformity with the limits
and parameters of the rules of procedures duly
promulgated by the SC. Dili pwede manghilabot
si congress sa rules of court na gi promulgate ni
SC.
The 1987 constitution altered the old provisions
by deleting the concurrent power of the Congress
to amend the rules, thus solidifying in one body
the Court’s rule-making powers, in line with the
Framer’s vision of institutionalizing a “stronger
and more independent judiciary.” Congress has
no authority to repeal, alter, or supplement rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure.
case? The rule making power of the SC includes
the power to issue TRO or writ Unsay relation ani
sa of injunction. Once the court acquires
jurisdiction or takes cognizance over a case, it
can issue these writs and order to resolve the
case consistent to the rules of court. This includes
the CA. It has inherent power to do all things
reasonably necessary to the administration of
justice in the case before it.
Therefore, it’s not within the power of the
legislature to grant or deny the power not is it
within the purview of the legislature to shape or
fashion circumstances under which this inherently
judicial power may be or may not be granted or
denied Dili pwede I deprive sa congress and
court of its rule making powers (issue this writs or
orders). By doing that, the congress here
encroaches upon the rule-making power of the
Court – violation of the separation of power.
Estipona vs. Lobrigo
Naging issue ni siya kay naay provision under RA
9165 Sec 23 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002) which provides that any person
charged under any provision of such Act
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be
allowed to avail of the provision of plea-bargaining
(prohibits plea-bargaining). Gi challenge ang
validity ani nga provision because according to the
challenger, this is an encroachment of the rule-
making power of the SC because a plea
105
bargaining it something the SC can regulate as
this is a matter of procedure.
Ana ang SC, tama ka Estipona. This provision is
contrary to the rule-making authority of the SC
under Sec 5 (5) Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution. Again under Article VIII, Sec 1 of the
1987 Constitution the SC shall have the power to
(Section 5) promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional
rights, pleading, practice and procedures in all
courts.
Plea bargaining, as a rule and practice has been
existing in our jurisdiction since 1940 Rules took
effect and in the current rules (Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure (2000) providing plea
bargaining in Rule 116 (arraignment and plea) and
rule 118 (pre-trial)). Clearly, it’s a rule of procedure
that only the SC can regulate and not the
congress. So kato nga provision under RA 9165,
it’s unconstitutional as it violates the separation of
powers doctrine.
Checks and Balances - to secure the
coordination of the workings of the different
branch of the government.
For example, the President has the power to veto
acts and bills if he thinks this would not benefit the
people. Meanwhile the Congress can also
overturn the veto power if they think that there is
an abuse of power on the part of the President.
The Congress has the power to lay down the
powers of the courts or cases na irecognize sa
courts except sa Supreme Court. It has the power
of checking mechanisms of funds. Has the power
of impeachment.
The congress confirms or rejects the President’s
appointment and can remove the President from
office in exceptional circumstances.
The Supreme Court has the final say on matters
regarding the unconstitutionality of the acts of
different branches of the government.
SAGUISAG v OCHOA
In this case, it claimed that EDCA is
unconstitutional for several reasons because the
EDCA was not in the treaty. So in resolving this
case, the court has the power of judicial review. It
is not to say that the SC is superior to other
branch of the government. The court only
exercises their power of Judicial Supremacy in a
sense that the Constitution is supreme.
They are not bound by the Political Question
Doctrine because even if it involves the exercise
of wisdom, the court can resolve it as long as
there’s a proof of violation.
However, even if the courts have this power it
must exercise it carefully and it cannot be
completely avoided because they are quo equal
with the other branches of government.
The government seeks to act in the best interests
of its citizens through this system of check and
balances.
The constitution expressly grants the SC the
power of Judicial Review as the power to declare
a treaty, P.D…. or regulation unconstitutional.
PADILLA v CONGRESS
The constitution itself lays down the protection or
the checks and balances mechanism in so far as
the exercise of the President as the Commanding in
Chief particularly the power to declare Martial Law
or suspend the privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Under Art. 7. Executive Department “the President
has the power to promote public peace…etc.”
pursuant to this is that he can declare Martial Law
and suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. To
safeguard from possible abuse, the constitution
institutionalize this checks and balance
mechanisms to these powers of the President
through the other two branches of the government.
The congress can revoke or extend the declaration
of Martial Law and the judiciary investigates
whether there is a sufficient factual basis for the
declaration of Martial Law.
There are 4 provisions on Article 7 on the powers of
the congress when the President declares Martial
Law or suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. This
includes the requirements before the declaration,
votes of the Congress in revoking or extending the
declaration.
106
 REPUBLIC v SERENO
In this case, Sereno was accused of not submitting
SALN while being a Chief Justice of SC.
The impeachment is one of the mechanisms sa
check and balances para dili maabuse sa president
ang iyang power if there will be grounds discovered
for their impeachment.
In this case, the defendant is an impeachable officer.
The Court’s quo warrant jurisdiction over
impeachable officers also finds basis in par 7,
Section 4, Article 7 of the Constitution which
designates it as the sole judge of the qualifications of
the President and VP, both of whom are impeachable
officers. According to respondent, no counterpart
provision exists in the Constitution giving the same
authority to the Court over the Chief Justice.
Respondent’s argument disregards that the filing of
SALN is not only a requirement under the law, but a
positive duty required from every public officer or
employee, first and foremost by the Constitution.
Integrity, as what the Court has defined in the
assailed Decision, in relation to a judge’s
qualifications, should not be viewed separately from
the institution he or she represents.
Quo Warranto proceeding is the proper legal remedy
to determine the right or title to contested public
office or to oust the holder from its enjoyment. Tan-
awon sa quo warranto kung eligible ba ka in the first
place to hold that position. On the other hand,
impeachment is a political process meant to vindicate
the violation of the public’s trust. The two
proceedings materially differ.
Differences:
1) Jurisdiction (kung kinsa ang maka-inititate,
kung asa ka mag file)
2) Grounds
3) Applicable rules pertaining to INITIATION,
FILING and DISMISSAL
4) Limitations
Impeachment- proceedings are political in nature.
Quo warranto- judicial or proceeding traditionally
lodged in courts.
Ang kanyang mga gipang cite na cases (CJ
Serreno), if you are an impeachable official, you
cannot be removed from the office by way of an
administrative complaint or a criminal case. The only
way you can be removed is by impeachment.
Article XI Sec 2 does not foreclose a quo warranto
action against impeachable officers.
The provision (Art XI, Sec. 2) uses the permissive
term “may” which, in statutory construction, denotes
discretion and cannot be construed as having
mandatory effect. “May” is an indicative of mere
possibility, an opportunity or an option.
Article XI, Sec 2 of the Constitution allows the
institution of quo warranto action against an
impeachable officer.
MR filed by CJ Serreno: gi site niya ang Senate
Resolution No. 738; congress ang naga-exercise
aning impeachment powers, it is the lower house that
initiates. Prepare for impeachment complain, kuhaon
nila ang necessary numbers, and the next step is to
go to SENATE which will now try to determine if she
is guilty as alleged or charged. Senate acted as the
impeachment court.
Senate: This ruling of the SC sets a “dangerous
precedent” because it transgresses the exclusive
powers of the legislative to initiate, try and decide all
cases of impeachment. THIS IS THE POWER OF
CONGRESS
SC: Wala mi ga intrude sa inyong power. We only
resolve this quo warranto case.
The act of some of the senators questioning the
Court’s judicial action is clearly an unwarranted
intrusion to the Court’s power and mandate.
We (SC) recognized that the Senate has the sole
power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.
Quo Warranto is not a figment of of imagination or
invention of this court. It is provided in the
Constitution where the judiciary is conferred original
jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other branches of
the government.
———————
Delegation of Powers
General Rule: Non-delegation of powers applies in
all branches of the government.
“What has been delegated by the people, cannot be
delegated.”
107

Exceptions:
1) Delegation to local governments (Rubi v.
Provincial Board)
2) Delegation to administrative bodies (Quasi-
legislative/quasi-judicial power)
3) Instances allowed by the Constitution
RUBI V PROVINCIAL BOARD
Gi-question ang validity ng Section 2145 of the
Admin code. Violative daw siya of the prohibition
against the undue delegation of legislative powers.
Nganong si provincial governor ang mag-decide
aning condition sa kaning mga natives, etc. This is
a power that ONLY CONGRESS CAN EXERCISE.
Ruling
The provision is valid. The maxim of
Constitutional Law forbidding the delegation of
legislative power should be zealously protected,
we agree.
However, there is a distinction between:
A.) the delegation of power to make the law which
cannot be delegated as a rule, and
B.) conferring an authority or discretion as to its
execution, to be exercised under and in pursuance
of the law.
Delegation to local authorities
Permits the central legislative body to delegate
legislative powers to local authorities.
Delegation of powers to administrative bodies
In the face of the increasing complexity of modern
life, delegation becomes necessary. The volume
and variety of interactions in today’s society, it is
doubtful if the legislature can promulgate laws that
will deal adequately with and respond promptly to
the minutiae of everyday life.
There are however TWO TESTS that must be
complied with para maging valid na delegation:
Completeness test
Sufficient standard test
ANTIPOLO REALTY CORP VS. NHA
Limited delegation to exercise quasi-judicial power.
It is discussed in this case.
Kay nag resolve ug conflict si NHA pursuant to the
law that empowers it to do so. Gi challenge ang
validity ani because according to Antipolo realty the
NHA was not authorized to perform this quasi-
judicial power.
Ruling
The NHA may exercise quasi-judicial powers. Many
administrative agencies exercise and perform
adjudicatory powers and functions, though to a
limited extent only. It is also well recognized in
our jurisdicition.
In this case, gitagaan si NHA ug power to resolve
this particular issue in this case. The limitation is a
statute may vest exclusive original jurisdiction
in an administrative agency over certain
disputes falling within the agency’s expertise.
This is the very definition of an administrative
agency includes its being vested wit quasi-
judicial powers.
Limitation
The extent of which the NHA has been vested with
quasi-judicial authority must be determined by
referring to the terms of P.D No 957 known as “The
Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’ Decree.”
However, again, this doctrine or the said
immunity cannot serve as an instrument perpetuating
an injustice, which is here mahitabo if dili mabayran
ang owner sa property sa value sa ilang property,
which is the taking a private property for public use,
naay obligation ang state to pay just compensation.
Our laws require the states’ power of eminent
domain shall be exercised through expropriation
proceedings in court, mao ng distinction, what is the
difference between eminent domain and
expropriation? Eminent domain is the power, the
inherent power of the state to take private property
for public use. Expropriation is the process, to
exercise this power of eminent domain. Anyway,
exercise, kani muagi ug court through the power of ,
through exercising the power of eminent domain,
108
whenever a private property is taken for public use,
here comes the duty of the concern not to initiate
expropriation proceedings by necessary implication,
the filing of a complaint expropriation itself is a waiver
of state immunity o isa pa ka exception ang nag
apply ang the state itself commences the suit so
therefore it waives its immunity ,because it, it, the
state itself is suing. It is unthinkable then the
precisely because there was a failure to abide by
what the law requires that the government would
stand to benefit, na kung kinsa na gani ,wala na gani
nabayran ning tag-iya sa property imo pa jung i-
defeat iyang claim by way of state immunity suit that
cannot be done .
Okay, another instance na naay implied
consent is from the government initiates a complaint
including that the government files a complaint in
intervention, nag apil-apil sya sa case, such as in the
case of “Froilan vs Pan Oriental” by filing its
complaint in intervention the government in fact
waived its right of non-suability. Why? It’s in the
state from suit does not the private of the right to sue
private parties in its own courts just because the
state is immune from suit does not mean that it
cannot sue, pwede sya mo sue, and by doing so, it
waives its fixed immunity, because it subjects itself to
counter claims by taking the initiative in an action
against a private party the suit surrenders its privilege
position, it comes now to the level of defendant, so
this defendant acquires with a certain level the right
to set up other claims and other defenses might have
against the state in that case.
On Republic vs Sandiganbayan, there is a,
an agreement entered into between the PCGG and
this crony Marcoses yata ni, in this case, unya karun
ahh dili ahh what is this, nag ah, ang katong
properties na gikuha sa PCGG kay wala nila na
manage ug tarong, so karun gusto na nila what is this
, gusto na kwaon balik sa owner of the property
katong properties na gipangkuha sa government. So
ana, so nagkasuhay noh para makuha ang property
and PCGG raised defense of state immunity from
suit, so ana ang supreme court the PCGG failed to
take stock of one of the exceptions to state immunity
and that is when the government itself is the suitor as
in this case because sya mismo ang nag initiate ani
na case to take this property unya wala nya na
manage ug tarong so karon gina kuha na sa owner,
dili nya maingon na “I am immune from suit” kay
precisely because it was the PCGG itself was the
one that initiated this case. Here, the state itself is no
less the plaintiff in the main case therefore it may be
found that a suit cannot be effectively invoked. Okay?
So when the state of its duly authorized officers takes
the initiative in a suit against a private party, the
sense into the level of a private individual and open
itself to whatever c0unter claims or defenses that
they may have against it. So kato ni sya, mao ni sya
ang isa sa mga implied giving of consent because
the state itself initiates it.
Of course, expropriation, ATO vs Ramos, the
doctrine of sovereign immunity can be an instrument
of perpetrating, related ni nga doctrine sa injustice sa
expropriation. In exercising the right to eminent
domain, the power of eminent domain, the state
exercises a jure used imperii activity. Our right as
distinguished on from it propriety a jure gestionis or
used as yet even in that area and the state exercises
a jure imperii power or endeavor, if private property is
taken in expropriation without compensation or just
compensation being paid the defense of the said
immunity from the suit cannot be set up by the state
against an action for payment by the owners.
Number one, ang state itself ang nag commence ug
expropriation proceedings so therefore gina waive na
nya ang right ang iyahang state immunity. Number 2,
it will result to an injustice if ma defeat ang claim. The
owner’s property if kwaon ang value ato by the mere
invocation of the state immunity because in the first
place he is entitled to the just compensation of the
property so it will also result to an injustice.
So in Commissioner vs San Diego,
expropriation proceedings a state precisely limits to
the courts, submits to the jurisdiction of a court and
asks the court to affirm its lawful right to take the
properties how to be expropriated. As the plaintiff
itself in the expropriation, proceeding, it submits itself
to the jurisdiction and therefore waives its immunity
from suit. It is elementary that in expropriation
proceedings the state precisely submits to the court’s
109
jurisdiction and ask the court to affirm its lawful right
to take the properties for the expropriation for the
public use or purpose described in its complaint and
to determine the amount of just compensation. Now,
what is the scope of the consent, so nag mention ta
earlier that the state can be sued if it gives its
consent that expressly or impolitely, what is the
scope of this consent? Naa bay limitation? Is the
giving of the consent of the state, also a waiver or
does it also give the other party the right to take the
property. Can the prevailing party execute on a
favourable decision against the state. So balik ta sa
Act no. 3083, naay provision didto diba kani na law
nag set sa general rule under Section 1 that if you
have money claim against the state, that state can be
sued provided that you follow this processes. so to
COA, etc., etc. However, under Section 7, naay
limitation, on execution. No execution shall issue
upon any judgment rendered by any court against the
Government of the Philippines. Hindi ka pwede maka
excute sa judgement. So in other words, ang extent
in a money claim, ang extent sa consent na gihatag
sa state sa imo expressly through sa Act no. 3083 to
sue it, is limited to your ability to sue the state but not
to the act thereafter which is execution. The law itself
limits the scope of the consent for money claims, no
execution shall issue upon any judgment rendered by
any court against the government of the Philippines,
but a copy thereof, duly certified by the court in which
judgment is rendered shall be transmitted to the
Governor-General at that time, So, in other words, if
mag prevail ka sa imong money claim, it does not
mean na automatically ma execute nimo na sya
against the government agency. Dapat ma-ensure
pud nimo na naa silay kwarta or property to satisfy
that claim kay kung wala maghulat ka na naay
appropriation to that effect.
So, what is the extent of the consent in
Commissioner vs. San Diego? Ana ang Supreme
Court as early as 1919 , that although the
Government, as plaintiff in expropriation proceedings,
(so this involves an expropriation pursuit) submits
itself to the jurisdiction of the Court and waives its
immunity from suit, the judgment that is rendered
requiring its payment of the award determined as just
compensation cannot be realized upon execution. In
other words, if makadaog ka, unya nagtuo na ang
court na naa kay valid na property unya kani ang
amount na ibayad sa imoha or as just compensation.
You cannot just go to motion for execution or kani
kaning mga yuta diri sa DOH, oh kani mo ni akong
gusto na ibaligya ninyo para i-satisfy akong just
compensation. Dili nana sya apil sa scope sa
consent na ginahatag sa state sa imoha.
Even if it is pursuant to the expropriation
proceedings. Ang difference is that, what the state
gives when it consents to be sued is just the ability
for you to sue it but when we go to another, to the
consequences thereafter, which is the execution of
the judgment, it’s another story, so anyway kani it
cannot be realized upon execution. The universal
rule that where the State gives its consent to be sued
it may limit the action only up to the completion of
proceedings prior to the stage of execution and the
power of the Courts ends when the judgment is
rendered.
Since the government, funds and properties
may not be seized under writs of execution or
garnishment to satisfy these judgments, and it is
based on obvious considerations of public policy. So
mao ni ang reason ngaong dili ka pwede maka
automatically attached, garnish, levy these properties
of the government even if it prevail in a suit because
kaning kwartaha ni, kani na property na ni naa nani
syay purpose. Disbursements of public funds must
be covered by the corresponding appropriation as
required by law, so kani, nakadaog ka sa imohang
suit against sa State, expropriation, so dapat bayran
na dapat ka? Asa man ang kwarta kuhaon? It must
be by way of public funds.
Kwarta dapat ang ibayad sa imoha ani sa
nagkuha sa imong property, this entity, unya karun
these are public funds, these funds can only be
disbursed if there is a law allowing them to be
disbursed so walay problema if there is a provision,
again as we said ealier if there is a provision, if there
is a disbursement for that specific purpose which is
for payment of the just compensation, walay
problema kung na budgetan na, kung naay kwarta,
pero kung walay kwarta for that, and then gusto na
110
nimo i satisfy, you cannot do that as a rule. The
reason why, because number 1, these funds cannot
be dispensed with or disposed of. If walay law
allowing the spending of these funds exists or walay
law nan aga exist or walay provision allowing the
disbursements of these funds and number 2, the
functions rendered by the public, provisions allowed
to be paralyzed or disrupted by the derivation of the
public funds legitimate specific objects as
appropriated by law.
As mentioned earlier, kaning kwartaha ni,
kaning property naa ni silay specific purpose. So mao
na sya ang problem kung walay naka allocate na
kwarta for payment of just compensation or to
payment of money claims maghulat jud ka. It does
not mean na you cannot recover but you cannot
insist na ma execute imohang winning decision if
walay appropriation for that na nakareserve so mao
ni ang reason, mao ning reasons. So this law, Act no.
3083 money claims. No, the general law winning
state immunity from suit upon any money claim,
imposed the limitation in Section 7 thereof that, No
execution shall issue upon any judgment rendered by
any court against the Government. So the general
law that they give the ability to sue the government
for money claims, also laid down the limitation na dili
naka maka execute on that judgment. Judgment
against the state or the agencies in case where the
contentment is to be sued, operate, liquidate and
establish the claim. That is the extent, so you sue it,
and establish the claim. Such judgments however
may not be enforced by writs of execution because it
is the legislature to provide for their payment to
corresponding application, so again, walay problema
kung nay kwarta naka set aside for that para maka-
satisfy. Pero kung wala, hulat ka na ma budgetan na
and then naay appropriation for that effect para
mabayaran ka sa imohang claim. Dili automatic that
when you prevail in a suit against the state na maka
execute dayun ka sa provision. Okay?
So anyway, kani, under a charter? Unsa
maning under a charter? This means that if the law
that created this entity gives the ability to sue and
also to be sued then it cannot raise the defense from
suit. So for example, ang pinaka common na
example ana kay ang mga GOCCs , especially if the
GOCC is kanang GOCC na gi-purchase lng sa state
ang majority shares na nahimo na syang
Government Controlled Corportation kana, naa man
jud syay separate personality, corporation na sya
under the Corporation Code sa una, nahimo na
syang government karun, meaning, in the first place
naa syay separate personality. Therefore kato sya
pwede to sya makasuhan, in fact iyang funds pwede
ma-garnish.
Funds between PNB vs CIRR funds of
GOCCs may be garnished, pwede sya makuha sa
court to satisfy a judgment. The NASCO has a
personality of its own, the same of that in the
government. Kani diay si NASCO ang GOCC in this
case , so ana ang supreme court pwede makuha ang
iyang kwarta , so ganiha atong gi discuss is the
limitation, if you prevail against the state does not
mean automatic ang pag satisfy sa iimong award
because kailangan ug disbursement but when we
talk about GOCCs, not only can they be sued, but
also pwede ka maka execute sa ilang property. Their
properties can be garnished to satisfy because again,
they have this separate personality distinct from that
of the state as well as their funds and properties. So,
kani, GOCCs may sue and be sued, NASCO here,
may sued or be sued and may be subject to court
process just like any other corporation therefore
garnishment can be appropriate in the prevailing
party in this case because GOCC man sya so mao
na sya, pwede ka maka claim ,pwede ka maka
satisfy when we talk sa imong award or judgment,
when we talk about the GOCCs as the losing party.
Why are they not immune from suit and why are their
funds not immune from garnishment? As a member
of a corporation a government never exercises its
sovereignty it acts merely as a corporator, and
exercises no other power in the management of the
affairs of that corporation that are expressly given by
the incorporating act or the law that created this
entity which could either be the corporation code or a
separate law, ang naghimo jud ani na GOCC. The
NASCO in this case may reaffirmed one of the oldest
soundest doctrines in the tranche of law so mao to
sya dili immune from suit ang GOCCs and also their
properties and funds, they are not also immune from
garnishment or levy to satisfy an award .
111

We have this interesting case involving the
ADB, so nay empleyado ang ADB nag file karun ug
illegal dismissal case against the ADB and also nag
violate daw sila aning labor only contracting a law so
karun gikasuhan na sa labor arbiter ang ADB. Ana
ang ADB, na immune ko from suit, naa tay charter,
naay charter ning ADB sa agreement between the
bank to ADB and the Philippines. Isa na sa mga
immunities na gina-acknowledge diri sa Philippines
na gina enjoy sa ADB and therefore in so far as a
general suits against the ADB is concerned, they
cannot sue it. Except if it involves borrowings,
guarantees, sales of securities kani lng na mga
limited instances pwede makasuhan ang ADB, but
for other suits as a rule based on its charter, it should
be immune from suit. The charter provides that the
bank shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal
processes except in cases of borrowing, guarantee
obligations , sale of securities and even the officers
of the bank are immune from legal processes so kani
na charter ang naga govern sa ADB and this ADB is
an International Body , so mao to, mao ni iyang gina
enjoy na immunity . So given the affiliations of the
charter and this agreement entered into between the
ADB and the Philippines establishes the immune in
the specified cases above knowing sale of securities
etc. Kato lang ang mga instances na pwede sya
makasuhan in our county. In so far as other matters
are concerned such as the case, the ADB enjoys its
immunity from legal processes of every form. So mao
to sya, the bank officers also enjoy such immunity
and these immunities are privileges, the charter and
the headquarters agreement granting this immunity
are treaty covenants voluntarily sued by the
Philippine Government which must be respected.
So take note ha if mugawas sa question na
ADB diay ang gikasohan, edi kabalo namo na naa
diay silay immunity na gina enjoy ang ADB. Ngano
man? What is so special about the ADB? Being an
international organization that has been extended a
diplomatic status, it is independent of Municipal Law,
it is an international organization. One of the basic
immunities of an international organization is
immunity from local jurisdiction meaning it is immune
from the legal writs issued by the tribunal courts of
the country where it is found.
Now, what about the kani, naay contrata
involved in this case , which is between the ADB and
the agency, naapil diri tong nag file ug case na
empleyado, katong nagreklamo for illegal dismissal .
Oh nag enter man ka ug contract between the ADB
and this entity , this private entity, oh is that not
waiver of immunity? Ana ang Supreme Court,
certainly the mere entering of a contract cannot be
ultimately passed, remember that when you talk
about contracts naa pay distinction, jure imperii and
jure gestionis. If the act and its pursuit of sovereign
activity then act is a jure imperii especially when it is
taken from gain or profit in this case the servicing
contract referred to by the employee of this case
have not been intended by the ADB for profit or gain,
but the official acts of which a waiver of immunity
would not attach , so the jure imperii acts. Mao nani
atong gina mention ganina na execution by the state
and its consent also allow or does it also waive the
immunity from the execution of the decision and we
already learned earlier that no, when sequences to
be suit, didto lng kutob na consent na ginahatag nya
for you to be able to establish your claim against the
state. In so far as the execution is concerned, you
cannot insist na makuha nimo ang mga properties
ani nga agency by way of execution, because these
are public funds and public properties na naa na silay
devoted purposes under the law. Of course, ang
exception ana kay katong GOCC ang napildi, imong
kalaban kay dili sya exempt from suit , dili pud sya
exempt from execution.
So to emphasize that we have Republic vs.
Hidalgo so the judge here granted a decision in favor
of the plaintiff and against the Republic, so napildi
ang state and it became final executory and the
judge here issued a writ of execution against the
republic and the sheriff of the court directed the
National Treasurer to pay the sum, oh pila man ang
amount? Ah gamay lng 1.9 Billion, so bayari na
National Treasurer. Of course, nagreklamo ang
Republic, what is the extent of the consent that the
state gave when it allow this person to sue it? When
the state gave its consent to be sued, it does not
112
consent to an execution, shortly, when the state
waives its immunity, effect is to give the other party
an opportunity to prove if it can that(sarcastic pajud,
“if it can”), the state has liability. In fact, there is an
Administrative Circular 10 – 2000 issued by the
Supreme Court to guide all judges of lower courts to
exercise at most caution imprudence, judiciousness,
and writs of execution against the government
agencies and local government units. The judges
cannot discriminately issue these writs of execution.
Here, the judge failed to comply with that, not only
within profound duties, they also wilfully engrossly
diregarded the law in controlling the jurisprudence.
So, he was ignorant, from the basic and simple
procedural rules. So looy si judge. Also, this judge
ruled na cost of suit against the state, bayari ni state
kay naa kay cost of suit. Ana ang supreme court na,
“Judge! This is a basic rule, cost of suit are not
recoverable against the government under the rules
of court”, mao to natiwasan iyang liability in this case,
na ingnan sya na ignorant sya. No cost shall be
allowed in the government of the Philippine Islands if
the government is a successful party.
UP vs Dizon, same atong case ganiha, oh
nakadaog na si contractor, naa nay final executory
ang decision, adto na sya sa UP oh na satisfy nani,
kay gusto nako kwaon ning yuta nimo diri or kaning
building diri ibaligya nato ni para i-satisfy akong
judgment. Ana ang supreme court, the funds of the
UP, its properties, they are not subject to
garnishment, why? Because they are public in
character, they include properties, the income
accruing from the use of property preceded by the
UP and these funds can only be used for the
attainment of its institutional objectives, a purpose.
Hence, the primary subject of this action could not be
valid object of the RTCs writ of execution or
garnishment. The adverse transfer rendered against
the UP and the suit to which the suit immunity is
enforceable by the execution , dili automatic because
the suability of the state does not necessarily mean
its liability , the UP’s own money held as a trust fund
could not be used therefore to pay for the award ,so
the UP here was correct the garnishment of its
funds ,to satisfy the judgment here cannot be done
by way of execution. If there was no special
appropriation by the congress to cover the liability, so
kung walay kwarta ang UP to address this liability na
napildi sya aning kasuha to pay these money claims,
dili ka maka insist na kwaon ang trust fund sa UP kay
katong trust fund, naa syay purpose. In other words,
maghulat ka, mag pray ka kay Lord na muadto ka sa
UP , na mag kuan ka na final nani akong claim ha, so
I budget na ninyo ni kay para naa koy appropriation
next year mabayran nako sa akong money claim,
that is wala jud silay kwarta appropriated for that
cost, pero pag naa silay kwarta, walay issue . So
that’s what happened here , when the trial court or
the court of appeals allowed the garnishment of the
funds of UP which are supposed to be public in
character are devoted to specific purpose . How can
the award be paid? Diba kanus-a paning kasuha
noh? 19kupong kupong pa unya 2012 na, unsa na ni,
patay na siguro ang tag iya aning contractor nani.
Anyway, unsa man? Tulog nalang ta? So ana ang
unsa, how can the award be paid? Ana ang Supreme
Court, indeed the appropriation by congress is
required before the judgment that UP render the
liability for the damages that would be satisfied,
because considering that this monetary liabilities
were not covered by the appropriations in that part. In
other words, walay budget or kwarta na naka allocate
daan to satisfy these damages. Again, the very very
basic rule in the constitution, no money shall be paid
out to the treasury except in the pursuance of
appropriation made by law. You cannot spend public
funds if there is no law allowing you to spend that.
Kaning mga government agencies nato, tanan nilang
ginagasto based na sa ilang budget, nay balaod na
naga-allow sa ilaha to do that which is the GAA. So
again, dili pwede magpataka ug kuha sa mga
properties or funds just because you win in the case.
There has to be specific appropriation for that if wala,
an appropriation must be made before the judgment
can be executed and satisfied.
Mao ni sya na concept, Suability vs Liability.
Suability is the ability to sue depends on the consent
of the state to be sued, the liability and the applicable
law established facts, the circumstances of the state
suable does not mean that it is liable on the other
hand it can never be held liable if it has not first
consent to be sued , but liability is not conceded by
113
the mere fact the state has allowed itself to be sued
because you can sue me or express me, does not
mean that I am automatically liable . When the suit
has waived its sovereign immunity it is only giving the
plaintiff the chance to prove it that it can if it is liable.
Now, let us go to certain provisions of the new
civil code, which I am sure right now, you’re studying
intently because you’re studying persons. Naa tay
provisions sa, the new civil code, that talks about the
suability against the state for certain acts, acts that
we call Torts, Article 2176 provided that whoever by
act omission causes damage to another that being
fault or negligence, so naga criminal law man mo
karun, unsa may meaning sa fault or negligence?
Kabalo namo? Fault or negligence is obliged to pay
for the damage done so kanang pagka daphag o
pagka tanga, naka cause ka ug damage such fault or
negligence if there is no being insisting contractor
relationship is called a quasi delict and is governed
by the provisions of this chapter. This is also known
as a Tort. Dili man tanan damages man gud based
on contract , dili pud tanan damages based on
criminal act, naa juy mga instances na mag
dinanghag lang jud ka unya wala moy anything
binding, naa kay na, if fact naka cause kag damage
based on your negligence, mao ni mo cover na
provision. In article 2180 of the new civil code, the
obligation imposed by article 2176, ato ang article na
naga define sa torts, is demandable not only for
one’s act or omission, but also for persons for whom
one is responsible, this is also known as the vicarious
liability. Because the presumption here is because
apil ka na responsible for this tort, because danghag
pod ka. So karon unsa may relation ani sa atong
subject sir? Oh, naay provision diri: the state is
responsible in light manner when it acts through a
special agent. So in other words, the state can be
held liable for a tort if it acts through a special agent.
So idefine na nato kinsa nang si special agent.
course, because of the evolution of civilization, it is
now impossible for these entities that possess these
delegated powers to keep these powers. For
example, the legislature, it is not, what is this, it
cannot anticipate everything that is happening. So,
when it passes laws, to a certain extent, it has to
delegate the crafting of the IRR of that law to the
executing body. Para makita nila ang nuances,
knowing that these entities, these bodies have the
needed expertise to promulgate and enforce the IRR
consistent with the law. Now, in the exercise of this
power, this delegated power --- kailangan katong law
nga nagdelegate ato na power must meet the two (2)
tests. Katong gi mention nato: (1) completeness
test, and (2) sufficient standard test. Otherwise,
the delegation of the power may be held as invalid
and therefore, the IRR will also be declared as
invalid. Anyway, dili lang legislative power ang pwede
ma-delegate. Also, quasi-judicial power. As we
learned in Antipolo Reality vs NHA last meeting,
these specialized agencies also have the ability to
resolve these issues, as provided to them under the
law na gitagaan sila og power to do that and
accordingly they can resolve. Again, noting the
expertise.
PITC vs ANGELES (1996)

Insert July 24 2nd hour (2nd Half)

Our discussion on the delegation of powers. So as a

general rule potestas delegata non delegari
potest, "what has been delegated can no longer be
further delegated." That is the general rule. But of

114
 So, continue ta with our discussion, the case we
continue with is PITC vs Angeles. Because here,
this PITC, the Philippine International Trading
Corporation, issued an administrative order. Which
provided for this requirement. Karun ang pangutana
-- is this PITC authorized, does it have the power,
quasi-legislative power to issue an administrative
order. Only laws can do that, issue an issuance,
kaning issuance only by way of legislation na siya
pwede mahimo. So therefore, kaning administrative
order, there is nothing empowering this entity to
issue such. Is this right? Ang argument sa PITC, it
is given such power under the law.
Issue: Is the grant of quasi-legislative power to the
PITC valid or is it unconstitutional?
Ruling: It is valid or not unconstitutional. There is a
recognition, as we emphasized last meeting that
because of the growing complexity of the modern
society, it has become necessary, needed na to
create more and more administrative bodies to help
in the regulation of the State’s ramified activities.
These entities are specialized in that particular field
assigned to them and therefore, they can better
deal with the problems of said field with more
expertise and dispatch than that of the legislature
and courts of justice. This is the reason why
delegation, is in fact a necessity during this time. So
pwede na sila mag delegate og quasi-legislative
and quasi-judicial powers. Of course, meeting the
two tests. In the exercise of such powers, the
agency na gitagaan og delegated power must
interpret kato, pursuant to the provisions of the law
giving them such delegated power, kana ilang
limitation. Particularly in this case involving global
trade and business becoming more intricate, the
time has come to grapple with legislations, etc.
Administrative policies and regulations must be
devised to suit these changing business needs in a
faster rate than to resort to traditional acts of the
legislature. So mao ning recognition that
administrative bodies are given delegated powers
because they have the expertise to implement the
law and resolve the corresponding issues.
DELEGATION OF POWERS PROVIDED UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION
So that’s it, now, so dili lang ang jurisprudence ang
nag provide for the instances, even law, na
magdelegate, na valid ang magdelegate. In fact, the
Constitution recognizes valid delegation of power in
certain provisions. For instance, in Article 6, the
Legislature, Section 23 thereof, naay limited
delegation of power to the president in times of war
or other national emergency, the Congress may, by
law, authorize the President, for a limited period and
subject to the restrictions imposed by Congress, to
exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a
declared national policy. So, in a way there is a
delegated power here because of the exigency. Of
course, by way of legislation --- so Congress mupasa
sila og balaod with all the limitations therein para ma
exercise ni president ang delegated power in this
circumstance. And of course, since Congress grants
this power, it is also the entity that can remove the
power from the president. So, there is a recognition
of a delegated power. Also, in Section 28 of Article 6,
Congress may by law, authorize the president to fix
within specified limit and subject to such limitations
and restrictions, Congress may authorize the
president to impose tariff rates, import and export
quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties
or impost. There is already a law giving the president
such a delegated authority to fix these said items.
Naay tay Customs Code of the Philippines. So kani,
naa tay recognition from the Constitution that
Congress can delegate because as a rule, Congress
is the one that by way of legislation, mag raise og
revenue for the country para mabayran ang atong
mga expenses, building and infrastructure. So
trabaho na ni Congress to create laws particularly
thru taxes na makakuha tag revenue. Pero this
provision recognizes a limited delegation of that
power to the president, in so far as tariff rates, import
and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and
other duties or impost are concerned, of course,
pursuant to a law.
Now, as we mentioned earlier, there are two tests na
dapat ma-meet sa balaod delegating that power para
maging valid tong delegation and these are (1) the
completeness test, and (2) sufficient standard
test. If mag fail ang law na naghatag ani na power,
then the delegation will be declared as invalid. Unsa
man mahitabo pag declared as invalid, so meaning it
violates the rule on non-delegation of power, general
rule. In other words, invalid ang delegation, illegal.
115
Now, there are tests, as we mentioned earlier, unsa
man ning completeness test? A law is complete
when it sets forth the policy to be executed, carried
out or implemented by the delegate.
So asa man nimo ni makita ang policy para ma meet
ning completeness test?
Makita nimo na siya normally sa provision declaring
the policy of the law, general policy, etc. Normally
naa ni siya sa mga sugod na provision, Section 1 or
Section 2. Mao na siya, dapat mag lay down og
policy ang balaod para makabalo ang delegate, the
entity that is supposed to implement it, the entity that
is given the delimited quasi-legislative or quasi-
judicial power unsa ang policy na gusto imeet ani na
legislation or law, Okay? So dapat didto nakabutang.
The law lays down a sufficient standard when it
provides adequate guidelines or limitations in the law
itself. To map out the boundaries of the delegate’s
authority and prevent the delegation from running
riot. In other words, the law itself must be crafted in
such a way na dili pwede tagaan si delegate og
unbridled discretion to interpret the same without any
limitation. So dapat, for example, if it fixes a certain
penalty of imprisonment, dili pwede na imprisonment
lang, dapat nay periods within which tanawun ni
delegate kung maghimo siyag IRR na kani ang
ihatag na penalty, pursuant to the law, among other
things. It must specify the limits of the delegate’s
authority, announce the legislative policy and identify
the conditions under which the law is to be
implemented.
AGUSTIN vs EDU (1979)
Both of these tests must be complied with,
otherwise the delegation is invalid. So, we have
cases involving this matter. We have Agustin vs
Edu, the Reflector Law, where in the validity of the
LOI which provided for an Early Warning Device for
motor vehicles. Gi require siya, among others, it
transgresses the fundamental principle of non-
delegation of legislative power. Gi tagaan og
authority ang kaning implementing agency. Ana
NO, invalid tong delegation of legislative power and
therefore kaning IRR na naga implement aning
balaod na ni, invalid as well. It is alleged na kaning
mga letter of instruction No. 229 pati ning
administrative order issued by the Land
Transportation Commission violate the provision on
non-delegation and that oppressive daw ang pag
enforce aning law through these issuances.
Ana ang Supreme Court, there is no invalid
delegation. Again, to avoid the taint of unlawful
delegation, there must be a standard which implies
at the very least, the law itself provides, as provided
by the legislature ang principles and policies to be
implemented by the law. So kailangan naay policy,
kailangan naay governing policy. Why this law was
implemented? This standard defines this policy,
marks, maps out its boundaries and specifies the
public agency to apply it, etc. So kailangan ma meet
ning requirements, otherwise the delegation will be
invalid.
Now, in fact, the standard may be express or
implied. If the former, the non-delegation objection
is easily met. It could be implied from the policy and
purpose of the act considered as a whole.
Kuntahay walay provision didto expressly providing
the policy, pwede nimo basahun ang law itself para
makita nimo unsa man gyud ang policy ani.
Apparently, this is allowed under Agustin vs Edu. Of
course to be safe, if you are in the legislature, when
you are supposed to draft a piece of legislation,
make sure nga naka define na in a specific
provision ang policy. Para dili na mangita ang court
asa ba diri ang policy. Para if ever nay issue, mas
dali sagangun ang issue on non-delegation. Here,
the Reflector Law itself, provides for the legislative
objective which is public safety.
FREE TELEPHON WORKERS vs MINISTER (1981)
O kani, there is a provision in the law that is
challenged to be in violation of non-delegation of
legislative authority given to the Minister of Labor,
which is the power and discretion to assume
jurisdiction or certify strikes for compulsory
arbitration. Mao ni ang gi challenge nila, unsa may
basis, nganong gihatag man ni sa kani na person
ang ability to certify these matters as matters for
compulsory arbitration to the NLRC?
Is there an undue delegation of power?
116
 No. What cannot be delegated ana ang Supreme
Court is to make laws. As we mentioned last
meeting, dili pwede na pag hatag, for example there
is already a law unya karun iimplement na siya by the
implementing agency, the executive department
concerned. Dili pwede na siya pa ang magmugna sa
balaod kay walay standard, walay limitations. Dili pud
pwede na siya mismo ang maghimo og IRR nga
beyond sa gihatag na authority. Therefore, limited
ang delegation and what cannot be delegated is
the authority to make the law, to alter and to
repeal the said law.
The test in order to determine if walay such a
delegation nga dili mulapas sa balaod ang delegation
na gihatag sa entity is if the statute meets the
completeness test. Where the law in all its terms and
provisions is already complete, marks, maps out the
boundaries. So, completeness test. Also, another test
that must be met, for the delegation given or provided
in the law, to be valid, dapat there must be a
sufficient standard which implies at the very least that law because otherwise ma ultra vires na wala na syay
the legislature itself determines matters, principles
and lays down the fundamental policy of the law.
Those two tests ha, remember. The standard
defines the policy, marks its limits, maps out its
boundaries. There after the executive or
administrative office designated, in pursuance of the
law which is already consistent or na meet na niya
ang completeness and sufficient standard test can
III. CITIZENSHIP
Now let’s proceed to a very heavy topic in the
Constitution. Very important as well. Kay daghan og
almost in every bar exam naay question on
citizenship and of course very practical pud ni for
example in the future naay mu adto sa imoha for
consultancy or for assistance regarding his/her
citizenship so at least we get to know the basics
here. So okay let’s go to citizenship. Where is it
provided?
What is citizenship?
Citizenship is a personal and more or less
permanent membership on a political community.
It denotes possession within that community of
full civil and political rights subject to special
disqualifications such as minority.
now promulgate supplemental rules and regulations.
The standard however doesn’t have to be spelled out
specifically. It could be implied from the policy. As we
mentioned earlier, mas gwapo kung naka spell-out
na siya but it’s not apparently necessary because
you can infer it from the law. So, the power to craft
the IRR is as a rule, lawmaking is not a delegable
power by congress but of course we already know
the exceptions. Katong gi mention nato last meeting:
(1) LGUs, (2) delegation provided by the
Constitution, (3) the delegation of administrative
powers, (4) the delegation of quasi-legislative and
quasi-judicial powers because of the policy, because of
the intricacy of our transactions nowadays, it has become
impossible for the legislature to foresee everything. So,
given that the agency that is provided with such a power to
promulgate this IRR is presumed to have that competence
then delegation, to a limited extent, maybe allowed. And
part of that power is again the power to promulgate the
IRR. All that is required is that the regulation should be
germane to the purposed mao ning point na dapat kung
mupasa ka og IRR, dili pud siya pwede mo go beyond the
basis --- kung mugawas sya sa gihatag na limitation. So
dapat again ha complete ang law, naa syay sufficient
standard. Now, karon ikaw na mag implement sa balaod
na naghimo na kag IRR, dili pud, since na lay down na ang
standard and the limitation, dili ka pwede mo go out of
such limitations. Mao na imohang limitation when you craft
the IRR pursuant to the delegated quasi-legislative power.
And of course, when you resolve the issues pursuant to
your quasi-judicial power. Okay so we are done with that.
So, when you are a citizen of a particular country,
you get to enjoy certain civil and political rights. That
is why diba kung muadto ka ug abroad or naa tay
mga parente na naa sa abroad, gusto gyud sila
mahimong citizen didto kay naa silay mga benefits
na makuha, naay silay mga right, etc. Kay kung dili
ka citizen, limited lang pud imong rights. Same in the
Philippines, naa man pud sguroy gusto maging
Filipino whether for example he is an alien, pa-
naturalize sya as a Filipino para na siyay ma enjoy
na certain rights. So that is what you enjoy when you
become a citizen of a particular country. And it is also
a membership in this community. Dili pwede na pag
citizen ka, sge lang pud kag enjoy sa rights naa pud
kay correlative obligation as a citizen, among other
things. So naay common na question which is the
difference between nationality and citizenship.
117
Unsay difference sa nationality ug citizenship? Dili
sila pareha.
When we talk about nationality, it is the individual
membership that shows a person’s relationship with
the state. When we talk about citizenship, it is the
political status --- unsa imong status which the state
recognizes that the person is recognized as a citizen
the country. It is a status. What is your citizenship?
Concept on nationality. It could be ethnic or racial.
When we talk about citizenship, concept is legal or
jurisdiction so it is based on law. Dili na sya gimugna
from thin air.
Nationality represents the place or country where
the individual was given birth. When we talk about
citizenship, it represents the individual is
registered as a citizen by the government of the
country. So dili lang basis ang citizenship is your
work. Naa pa tay mga instances makakuha kag ug
citizenship. So nationally siguro, to get grasp of what
it is, isipon nimo kung unsa ang iyang ethnicity or
race. When we talk about citizenship, what is your
status in that state. What else, nationality, you
acquire it by birth and inheritance. When we talk
about citizenship, you can acquire by birth, in certain
instances siguro in other country inheritance. You
can also acquire it by way of marriage, you can also
acquire it by way of naturalization. In the Philippines,
birth and naturalization. At least karon, mao lang na
ang ways to acquire Filipino citizenship by way of
naturalization. Can it be changed? Your nationality
cannot be change anymore but when you talk about
citizenship, yes, pwede sya ma change. Can it be
reverse, nationality? No, it is innate. Citizenship it can
be reverse, it can be change, so to speak.
So, in the Constitution, it provides for
specifically kung kinsa ang Filipino citizen.
Who are citizens of the Philippines? It is in Article 4.
So, if pangutanon sa bar the question, who are
Filipino citizens, political law, then imong i-sight ang
Article 4 and you enumerate the kani nga
enumerations. It’s in Section 1 -- The following are
the citizens of the Philippines. Who? (1) those who
are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the 1987 Constitution, this
Constitution. So tanawon nimo when you look at
that, kung kinsa ang citizens at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution and normally mutanaw
gyud ka kung unsa ang governing law na naghatag
og citizenship ana nga mga tao prior to the adoption
of the 1987 Constitution. Nganong considered
naman sila as citizen? So naay basis and the basis is
the previous Constitution. So tanawon na pud nimo
ang previous na Constitution kung kinsa ang citizens
of the Philippines. So, mu-refer na pud ka sa
previous Constitution. So ang importante is that the
current Constitution recognizes that Filipino citizen ka
if at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, you
are considered as a citizen of the Philippines;
(2) those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of
the Philippines. So, for example imong mama,
Filipino or imong papa, Filipino, or both of them are
Filipino, you are already considered a Filipino citizen
under the 1987 Constitution.
(3)Those born before January 17, 1973, (which is
the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution), of
Filipino mothers who elect Philippine citizenship
upon reaching the age majority. So apparently,
prior to the 1973 Constitution, those born before this
1973 Constitution, naa diay distinction sa katong
mga mama lang ang Filipino kay naa pay silay
additional requirement na himuon, which is
election of the Filipino citizenship. And if they
validly elect such a Filipino citizenship, they are
considered under number (3) as Filipino citizens we
will discuss that later; and
(4) those who are naturalized in accordance with
law. Now tan-awun nimo sa enumeration the first 3
requirements described natural born Filipinos. They
talk about being Filipinos at birth. When we talk about
number four, mao ni tung other way to get Filipino
citizenship, if you are naturalized in accordance with
law. So, there are only two ways currently to get
Filipino citizenship: (1) jus sanguinis – being born a
Filipino getting uhm kato, Filipino imong parentage or
(2) naturalization.
118
Now we have classifications, we have citizens
considered as natural born and naturalized. Naa pud
tay gina tawag na dual citizens which we will discuss
in the future kung unsa ni sila. Naa tay gina tawag na
mga alien. Dili alien na kanang literal na alien gikan
sa Mars but aliens who are non-Filipino citizens. And
also, we have stateless individuals. So, kung naa ka
sa Philippines, you can be considered as a citizen or
you can also be considered an alien or you could be
considered as a stateless individual.
Now there are, the usual modes of acquiring
citizenship is:
(1) by birth - jus sanguinis - by blood;
(2) it can also be jus soli, which is by place of birth.
For example, unsay may mga countries na naga
practice or naga observe aning jus soli? I think in US,
kung mapanganak ka digto sa US, considered ka as
US citizen. South Korea pud ata, jus soli sila. In the
Philippines, we no longer follow this jus soli principle.
We follow the jus sanguinis which is ang basis sa
imo is your blood. You can also acquire
citizenship by naturalization, as we mentioned
earlier and by marriage. Naay limited instance na by
this alien’s marriage to a Filipino, nakakuha sya ug
Filipino citizenship or ikaw Filipino, nag marry ka sa
other country, naa silay balaod didto na by your
marriage mahimo na pud kang citizen. Pwede na
sya. So those are the usual modes of acquiring
citizenship.
Now in the Philippines, what are the modes of
acquiring Filipino citizenship before the adoption of
the 1935 Constitution?
So medyo old na kaayo ni sya na gina observe nato
ang jus sanguinis, which provides na kani, naay en
masse filipinization, as discussed in the case of
TECSON vs COMELEC, kanang balaod na ni sila.
There was at that time na wala pay identity ang mga
person. Naay balaod na nag hatag sa ilaha ana na
status.
All in habitants of the islands of the Philippines who
were Spanish subject on April 11, 1899, and residing
in the islands, who didn’t declare their intention in
preserving Spanish nationality --- they were all
declared as citizens of the Philippines. O diba, by
way of law there was this en masse filipinization and
prior to the 1935 Constitution nag follow pud ta aning
jus soli principle which is kung asa ka gipanganak.
After, however, the adoption of 1935 Constitution,
duha na lang:
1.) jus sanguinis, the child follows the citizenship of
the parents regardless of the place of his/her birth.
So, for example, gipanganak ka sa America, imong
parents kay Filipino kay pango ug ilong or Filipino.
Well you can be considered as a dual citizen there by
operation of law, didto ka gipanganak, jus soli man
sila, naa kay American citizenship. You are also a
Filipino because you are born with Filipino parents
pursuant to the jus sanguinis doctrine. And the
second mode of acquiring Filipino citizenship is :
2.) naturalization. You are clothed with the privilege
of a native-born citizen. Alien ka, nagpa naturalize
ka, considered na ka as a naturalized Filipino citizen.
So going back to the provision, who are Filipino
citizens?
(1) those are citizens of the Philippines at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution.
So prior to the adoption of 1987 Constitution,
unsa man ang prevailing Constitution? The 1973
Constitution dba? So tanawon nato sa 1973
Constitution kung kinsa ang Filipino citizens.
Filipino citizens at the time adoption of the 1987
Constitution are those who are citizens under the
1973 Constitution. So kinsa man na sila? Ang sa
1973 Constitution, Filipino citizens are those who
are at the time of the adoption of the 1973
Constitution were also citizens at that time. So
tanawon nimo karon, katong pag adopt sa 1973
Constitution, kinsa ang Filipinos. So mutanaw
napud ka karon sa prior Constitution, which is
the 1935 Constitution. Kay kani sya mao ni sya
ang nag establish kung kinsa ang mga citizens
prior or during the adoption of the 1973
Constitution. So under the 1935 Constitution,
kani citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
adoption of the… so balik na pud ka unsa ba ang
119
 prevailing rule na ma consider na, that would
give such a status to a citizen prior to the
adoption of the 1935 Constitution? Naa tay
Jones Law, en masse filipinization. Kinsa pa
under the 1935 Constitution? Born in the
Philippines of foreign parents who had been
elected by the public office, those whose fathers
are citizens of the Philippines. O diba very unfair.
Ngano diay kung mother nimo Filipino dili diay
ka citizen? Apparently, under the 1935
Constitution, dili, so naay distinction ana. So naa
ra, those whose mothers are citizens of the
Philippines, dili automatic. Upon reaching the
age of the majority, kailangan pa ka mu-elect og
Filipino citizenship. So naa ra ang distinction.
And finally, those who are naturalized in
accordance with law. So, kung mahulog ka diri
under 1935 Constitution, as a Filipino citizen, as
defined/enumerated pag adopt sa 1973
Constitution who are under the 1973 Constitution
is a Filipino citizen and if under the 1973
Constitution you are Filipino citizen, you are also
under the 1987 Constitution a Filipino citizen.
Who else?
(2) Under the current Constitution ha those whose
fathers or mother are citizens of the
Philippines. So gi tanggal na tong distinction,
regardless kung kinsa ang imong parent, as long
as isa sa ilaha kay Filipino, you are now
considered as a Filipino citizen. So, this is the
adoption of jus sanguinis principle --- if the child
is born under the 1973 or 1987 Constitution and
either or both parents is a Filipino, the child is
considered as a Filipino.
An application for an ACR is not INDUBITABLE
PROOF of forfeiture of Philippine citizenship.
Just because you apply an ACR does not mean
you already expressly denounce your Filipino
citizenship. It is only in fact a registration as an
alien; provides that it is only evidence of
registration. That fact na nag-register ka as an
alien. Obtaining an ACR by the mother here was
not tantamount to liquidation of original
citizenship. It did not also result in the acquisition
of alien citizenship. An application for and
holding an ACR is not an act constituting
renunciation of Philippine citizenship. Thus, for
renunciation to effectively result in the loss of the
citizenship it must be express. And kaning
application for an ACR or holding an ACR in fact
dili siya enough to make that as a renunciation of
Filipino citizenship.
REPUBLIC VS. CARVASI
Carvasi here in Republic vs. Carvasi, nagpa-naturalize
sya. He alleged that he is recognized as a person of
concern under the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees. Refugee sya so niadto siya sa Philippines
and nagpa-naturalize sya. So karon ang SolGen (mao
man na imong kalaban in naturalization proceedings)
niana na, “you should prove as an applicant for Filipino
citizenship by naturalization na naay reciprocal law sa
Iran — na dapat sa Iran pud nagarecognize pud sila ug
naa pud laws on naturalization of Filipinos. Dapat
reciprocal. So kita naga allow ta ug citizenship, dapat
imuhang sariling country should also allow for
naturalization of Filipinos. Wala na nimo na-prove
Carbasi. So therefore, you are disqualified … law.
Ana ang Supreme Court: No. He has successfully
established his refugee status in the Philippines. Naay
lenient treatment here. And because of our country’s
obligations under various international commitments:
· Convention on the status of Refugees (1951) –
contracting states shall, as far as possible
facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of
refugees
Special circumstance ning kay Karbasi because
he was able to prove that he is a refugee.
Karbasi’s status as a refugee has to end with the
attainment of Filipino citizenship in consonance
with our laws and international obligations. This
naturalization law must be in line with the
developments of international and human rights.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Natural-Born Filipinos
There are only 2 Classifications: whether you are (1)
Natural born, or (2) Naturalized
Kung di ka naturalized— meaning Pinoy ka, you are
natural born. If you are not natural born pero pinoy
ka, then you must be naturalized. Ngano man Sir?
Because there are certain instances na required ning
natural born status for certain positions or for the
enjoyment of certain rights.
120
Who are natural-born citizens of the Philippines?
Sec 2 of Article IV:
“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.”
*you did not go to courts to get Philippine citizenship
(there is a need to perfect their Filipino citizenship)
Question: Those who are born under the 1935
Constitution, diba they have to elect and to follow the
process for them to get Filipino citizenship, are they
considered naturalized because they have to do
something to perfect their citizenship? NO. Because
the same provision provides that those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph 3
of Section 1 of Article IV, they are also considered
natural-born even if they have to perfect their
citizenship by way of election.
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.
(*First 3 provisions – mao ni ang naga-describe sa
mga natural-born Filipinos.)
Poe-Llamanzares Vs. COMELEC
Senator Poe-Lanzamares ran for the presidency
Sir: what is the requirement of the Constitution
Ans: The president should be natural-born
Q: What was the allegation against her?
Ans: She was not a natural-born because she was a
foundling (in other words, wala siya’y citizenship. Ikaw mu-
prove Grace Poe sa imong citizenship kay wala mi kabalo
asa ka gikan kay foundling ka – you are found there).
Since we are not sure as to your status, you cannot run as
a president.
Resolution: She is natural-born Filipino.
Sir: Why?
Ans: Gipakita sa SolGen nang statistics at the time Grace
Poe was found, kaning mga tao sa Ilo-ilo, 98-99% are all
Filipinos. So there is a presumption na kung kinsa man
ang nagbilin sa iyaha dira, would also be biologically
Filipino. Lisod nga imuhang i-presume otherwise na
katong .1-1% jud ang naghulog. Also, tan-awon nimo sa
iyahang nawng pinoy man jud ni: ang ilong, ang mata…
Pinoy man ni jud ni siya iyang mga features uyyyyyyy
(Physical features) .
And finally, as to the status of the foundlings concerned,
unsa man ang ruling sa Supreme Court? If you are a
foundling in the Philippines, what is your citizenship?
Ans: You are Filipino (not an absolute rule in this case–
case-to-case basis). If there is an allegation that you are a
foundling, you have to prove that you are foundling in the
Philippines. In this case at least, not automatic that you are
already a natural-born because you are found here in PH,
but of course you will learn in this case na naay gibutang
na presumptions ang Supreme Court which is a
landmark rule as well.
Facts: Grace Poe was found as an infant in Ilo-ilo. She
was registered as a foundling and later on gi-adopt siya
aning celebrities nato when she was 5 yrs old and her
name was changed. So karon, nidagan siya for president.
Under the Art VII Sec 1: you cannot be a candidate for
president if you are not a natural-born. Gikasuhan sya
karon. What is your (Grace Poe’s) citizenship?
Basis:
(1) Statistics from PSA (1965-1975) – there is a
probability that a child born in the Philippines was
natural-born is 99.83%. So gipanganak jud siguro
si Grace Poe within this probability.
(2) Typical Filipino features – her height, flat nasal
bridge(pango), black hair, almond shaped eyes
(3) Ana ang Supreme Court na there is a
presumption that things happened according
to the ordinary course of nature and in the
ordinary habits of life (So mao ni ang
presumption: Typical filipino features who is
abandoned in a Catholic Church in a municipality
where the population in the Philippines is
overwhelming Filipinos, more than 99% chance
that that could be a Filipino- that would all indicate
121
 a probability, if not so, certainty that her parents
are Filipinos.
So diba tanawon nimo tanang evidence, it would all point
out na ang ginikanan ning bayhana nga ni kay PINOY.
And having been born by Filipino parents, she is
considered a natural-born Filipino. Nagpa-naturalize ba
siya? Wala. So pinoy siya and natural-born.
The Court also emphasized the recognition and
treatment of foundlings in the Philippines. If you are
foundling, as a matter of law, a foundling as a class is
natural-born . When the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration
is silent, there is no restrictive language in the same
Constitution excluding foundlings. So pag mabasa nimo
ang provisions sa tulo ka Constitution, wala may
nakabutang didto na foundling diba as natural-born.
Nevertheless, it did not mean that they are excluded from
the enumeration because of the silence and the ambiguity
of the enumeration. there is a need to examine that for the
intent of the framers. The deliberations of the 1934
Constitution have shown that the framers intended
foundlings to be covered by the enumeration and the
policy therefore is clear— foundlings as a class as filipinos
under the 1935 Constitution – natural-born pajowd!!! And
this policy is carried over into the 1973 and 1987
Constitution. There is no provision or language in the
Constitution providing for discrimination against them.
It is argued that naa pa man to’y process Sir nga before
siya maconsider as a foundling. Naa pa’y foundling
certificate which is di na kailangan, nga gi-issue sa iyaha
para mahimo sya ug foundling and makuha ni na status.
Naa pa syay gihimo na something or activity to perfect her
Filipino citizenship… therefore, dili sya natural-born diba
as defined earlier because she has to do something to
perfect her citizenship.
Ana ang Supreme Court: NO. Having to perform an act
means that the act was personally done by the citizen.
Here, the foundling status is not done by the child but by
the authorities. And the process for the foundlings is the
determination of the whereabouts of the parents. And
lastly, the process to confer the foundling status on a child
is not unanimous to a naturalization proceeding.
Under those covenants and international laws, we have
the obligation to give this child a nationality and as far as
possible to know and to be cared for through by his/her
parents. The point here is to obligate the Philippines to
grant citizenship from birth and to ensure that no child is
stateless. As much as possible, we interpret our laws that
would give basic citizenship to a child rather that to make
that child stateless.
David vs Senate
Under the Constitution, Art VI: you cannot be a member of
the Senate if you are not a natural-born Filipino.
David, a loser in the 2003 Senatorial Elections, filed before
a SET a quo warranto petition against Grace Poe because
she was not a Filipino citizen. Unsa ang arguments niya?
His parents are unknown, she failed to satisfy the jus
sanguinis principle— she failed to establish her Filipino
bloodline which is, according to David, is the essence of
our Constitution’s determination for natural-born citizens in
the Philippines. Jus Sangunis ta diba, so ikaw Grace
Poe… you have to prove that you are a Filipino citizen.
Because you are a foundling, we cannot determine kung
filipino ba ka or imong parents ba Filipino. Moreover, naa
sa Art IV Sec 1, wala naka-mention didto ang foundling –
taken just on the primacy paved in places in this provision
and its enumeration on who are Filipino citizens
particularly this Sec 1 Par 2 (those whose fathers or
mothers…) Because wala man ta kabalo kung papa ba ni
or mama are Filipino, you cannot belong to this category.
Basis: in the Constitution, kani lang ang mga natural-born
Filipinos (as enumerated). Since you do not belong in this
list, you are not a Filipino.
Now, the ruling of the Court here also landmark ni siya ha
on foundlings.
Now there are only 2 categories of Filipino citizenship:
Natural-born and naturalized. So mao ni atong gi
emphasize ganina.
Natural-born is in Art IV Sec 2 , 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.
Based on the argument of David, does this provision (Art
IV Sec 1) exclusively enumerate who are natural born?
NO!!!!!! Ana ang Supreme Court this provision here merely
gives an enumeration. Sec 2 is the one that you have to
look for. It categorically defined those who are natural-born
citizens and katong mga they do not have to do anything
to perfect – mao na ang considered as natural-born.
Therefore, his reliance on Sec 1 and the need to establish
a bloodline is misplaced. It is inordinately selective
myopic.
How do you determine that person is natural-born?
Between Art IV Sec 1 and Sec 2, Sec 3 is on point — to
determine if this person is natural-born, you must look into
whether or not he had to do anything to perfect her
citizenship. Tanawon nato if she underwent naturalization,
if not she is a Filipino, natural-born. Did she undergo
naturalization proceedings? NO.
122
What does the provision require? It only requires Sec 2 —
kadtong definition na wala kay himuon to perfect your
citizenship. In relation to Sec 1, it only requires that your
parents (either father/mother) must be citizens. That is
called there is to it. Provision in Sec 1 does not
enumerate all the instances. It’s not an exclusive
enumeration of who can be considered as natural-
born citizens.
Moreover, naa pud sila’y reference balik sa Poe-
Llamanzares vs Comelec case insofar as to the typical
features and statistics are concerned. Anyway, going back
to the enumeration in Art IV Sec 1 – in fact, take note na
dili siya exclusive enumeration of who are Filipinos. It also
does not enumerate natural-born, and also the provision
na katong parents are Filipinos… it does not even require
that your parents must be natural-born Filipino citizens
because your parents can be naturalized Filipinos. Born of
a naturalized Filipino, you are considered as a natural-born
Filipino. It does not require them to conform to the
traditional consumption of what is indigenous or ethnical.
So there is no need to insist to a pure Filipino bloodline as
David argues.
Tanawon nato ang provision… Who is natural-born? Sec 2
– those who did not have to do anything to perfect their
Filipino citizenship. Did she have to do anything to perfect
her Filipino citizenship? Ha, WALA. And on Sec 1 Art IV, is
this an exclusive enumeration? No. Does it exclude
foundlings as Filipino citizens? No. Oh, so unsa imong
basis karon? Has Poe proved her natural-born status?
YES.
Take note: VERY VERY IMPORTANT doctrine in this case
na gi-mention earlier: THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF
FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP. If it is challenged, you have to
prove. However, here in this case, there is a seeming
established on doctrine. The Constitution sustains a
presumption that all foundlings found in the Philippines are
born to at least a Filipino father or a Filipino mother and
thus are natural-born. So when we talk about
foundlings naa diay sila’y gina enjoy na presumption .
So ikaw na as a foundling na for example gi-
challenge imong citizenship, you have to prove that
you are found in the Philippines and thereafter
makaenjoy ka dayon ug presumption that you are
either born to a Filipino father/Filipino mother and
therefore you are natural-born. Naa nay presumption
karon if you prove that you are a foundling in the
Philippines. Diba special kaayo ang mga foundlings
(heheh) unless there is a substantial proof otherwise.
And if you want to dispute that presumption because
presumed naman na mao na imong parents/ lineage,
ikaw na nag-challenge, you have to prove
countervailpercent that both of this foundling’s
parents are not Filipino citizens. Diba bug-at kaayo
ang burden on your part as the challenger. Dili lang
isa, dapat duha gyud ka parents ang ma prove nimo
na dili Filipinos. So, the presumption that all
foundlings are born to at least either a Filipino
Father / a Filipino mother and are thus natural-born
arises when one needs the constitution as a whole so
as to effectuate its whole purpose.
ELECTION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP
In Re: Ching
BAR MAT No. 914
October 01, 1999
Facts: Ching is a legitimate child of Tat Ching, a Chinese
citizen, and Dulay, a Filipino born on April 11, 1964. So
unsay consti nagcover sa iyaha? 1935. So karon legit
sya na anak ni Tat Ching, a Chinese and Dulay, a
Filipina. Definitely nahulog siya sa katong 3
requirements: legitimate child, a Filipina mother,
alien father and 1935 constitution.
So karon nagtake sya ug Bar Exam, nakapasa pa jud
sya pero wala sya gipatake oath kay dili klaro iyahang
citizenship. Now in the Philippines, you can exercise, you
can be a lawyer as long you are a Filipino. Walay
distinction kung natural born or naturalized. As long as
you are Filipino, you can practice law. Ang problem kay
Ching, kung unsay iyahang citizenship in fact? He
appeared to be a Chinese citizen coz he’s father is a
Chinese Citizen. So karon wala syay gipaoath kay
Chinese man sya.
The OSG, issued a comment that Ching, being a
legitimate child of Chinese father and Filipina Mother,
born under the 1935 constitution, he has to elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority and
reasonable time, three years but can be extended.
Issue: Apparently, Ching elect Filipino Citizenship on
July 15, 1999, after 14 years of age of majority. Solgen
said, 14 years is still reasonable. Tama ba?
Held: No, his Filipino citizen election was not made in
reasonable time. The governing law here to elect is CA
625. You have to express the intention in a statement to
be signed and sworn to by the party concern before the
office of who administer the oath and that statement be
accompanied by an oath of allegiance to the Philippine
constitution and the government. You file it to the nearest
civil registry. Jurisprudence provides, three years from
the age of majority is reasonable but extendable if
mahulog ka sa exceptional circumstances.
Ma vs Fernandez, Jr.
GR No. 183133
123
 July 26, 2010
Facts: So kani, CA katong requirement to elect. They were
able to elect, katong tulo na mag igsoon. 1935 constitution,
Nahulog sa condition, Chinese father and Filipino mother. Then
they made the election within the proper time. Ang problem
here is they failed to register their documents. Kailangan baya
sa balaod, under the law ganiha. You execute statement
including your oath then you go to City Civil Registry to register
that, as required under the law. It was only more than 30 years
after they elected that they registered their kani election, so
karon gikasuhan sila as a being undesirable and over stayed
aliens.
Held: Ana ang Supreme Court na naa silay leniency on the
1935 Constitution requires katong requirement na mag elect ka
if mahulog ka sa katong, legitimate-alien Father and Filipina
Mother then 1935 constitution ka.
In the process of election, guided by CA 625, mao ning
requirements:
1.Statement of election under oath
2.Oath of allegiance to the constitution and the registration of
those with the civil registry.
Here, they complied with the two first requirements, naa man
sila, nadugay lang sila register. It was only the registration, was
it fatal to their claim of Filipino citizenship?
Ana ang Supreme Court, under the facts peculiar to them, in
other words, it is only applicable to them because of the
different factual settings, the right to elect citizenship has not
been lost even if they failed to register on time. What the SC is
saying is for the election that had not been done within the time
but the registration was beyond, dili na sya reasonable, like
here more than 30 years, they can still do that. Valid gihapon
ilang election if before katong wala pa sila nakaregister they
acted as Filipinos consistently and continuously.
What is the purpose of that formal registration anyway? To
record and annotate a certain act. Here, since they are already
doing this act as Filipinos, there is only notice to the public. No
need to formalize it by way of formal registration. This acting
as a Filipino is already notice to the world that they are
Filipino.
In this case, registration is the confirmation of the existence of
fact. Valid requirement that will confirm Filipino Citizenship. It is
only a means of confirming that fact that citizenship has been
claimed. But still, they took them awhile but they act their entire
lives as a Filipino. But still, required parin ang registration.
Kaning case is special because of the peculiar facts.
Vilando vs HRET
GR No. 192147
August 23, 2011
Issue here is that is si Limkaichong daw nahulog sa
1935 constitution, unya wala daw siya nielect. So
ana ang Supreme Court, she impliedly elected
Filipino Citizenship. Take note of this case because
of the subsequent cases explicit pud ang part.
There is no such thing as implicit election. Anyway,
so kani sya exception to the rule. She impliedly
elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the
age of majority because she participated in the
elections, accomplished voters affidavit, and run as
a candidate, these are acts relative to election
Philippine citizenship., implied election.
Republic vs Sagun
GR No. 187567
February 15, 2012
Facts: Supreme Court said, requirements in CA
625 is clear, kung mahulog ka dira, you follow it.
Katong statement, registration. That’s what
happened. Legitimate child of a Chinese, unya
Filipina mother, born on 1935 Constitution but failed
to elect a Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age
of majority. Now, she executed an oath of
allegiance but it was not notarized and not
registered. In other words, scrap of paper lang tong
iyahang gihumo. So nag apply sya ng Philippine
passport but it was denied because there’s no
annotation in her birth certificate na nag elect sya.
So niadto sya court, nagfile sya petition for judicial
declaration of Philippine citizenship. And the trial
court granted the petition.
Issue: Tama ba tong petition? Valid ba ang
decision?
Held: No, ana ang Supreme Court that there is no
such thing “judicial declaration of citizenship” of an
individual. There is Judicial Naturalization, pero
iprocess ang procedures to follow. Dili pwede
mudiretso ka sa court para ang Court muingon na
Filipino ka. No law empowering our courts to in
cognizance such proceedings, it cannot make a
ruling. Walay pulos tong decision because the
court is not authorized to issue that decision.
Therefore she has to comply with the election
requirement because she was born under the 1935
Constitution, nahulog sya sa tulo ka requirement.
She was not able to do that. So dili pwede tong
gihumo nyang shortcut. And dili ka pwede
muimpliedly elect.
Vasquez vs Cueco Kho
AC no. 9492
2016
124
 You cannot collaterally attack the citizenship of a
person, you cannot do that by way of disbarment
proceeding. So here, gipadisbar si Atty. Kho
because sya naghimo daw sya ng falsehood when
he declared in acceptance of nomination certificate
that he was a natural born. The court will now be
the Disbarment Committee take cognicance to
determine if natural born ba sya. So it is now an
attack on his citizenship, kay magdetermine man
karon ang IBP kung natural born ba ka o dili
because it is the determination of his disbarment
case. You have directly attack, in different
proceeding particullarly to that purpose. An attack
on a person’s citizenship may only be done by
direct action nullity, disbarment case is not a proper
venue for that.
Second Classification of Citizen: Naturalized
Q: What is naturalization?
A: It is the legal act. So meaning naa kay himuon.
Legal act of adopting an alien, including him with the
privilege of a native born citizen.
Q: Who are naturalized citizen?
A: Those who have become Filipinos citizen through
naturalization. The naturalization generally under
CA 473 or the Revised Naturalization Law which
repealed the former naturalization law. So, mao ni
syang judicial naturalization CA 473. Oh naa pud
tay ginatawag na Administrative Naturalization.
Anyway, to be naturalized, an applicant has to prove
that he posses all the qualifications and non of the
disqualifications provided by the law. So that modes
of being naturalized, naa tay ginatawag na direct,
judicial, katong gimention nato CA 473 the Revised
naturalization law or the Administrative. Pwede pud
ka ma naturalized filipino by special act legislature.
Meaning naay law gipasa that vest on you with status
of naturalized filipino. Special ka, special act. Or it
could be a way of collective change of nationality
because we are conquered or na tay cessation. Or in
some cases by adoption of orphaned minors as
nation of the state. It could be comes siguro in other
countries.
Now, ang second mode of naturalization ganiha ay
direct, judicial, administrative and etc. Naa pud tay,
second mode, derivative. You acquired it from
someone who acquired it already. It could be derive
by the wife of the naturalized husband, by the minor
children of a naturalized person, or an alien woman
un-marriage to a national. Pwede na sa uban
countries siguro.
Now, even in the Philippines, pwede na sya. Naa pud
tay provision. So kaning minor children of
naturalized, meaning buhi na ang mga bata. Minor
sila then nagpanaturalized ang parent, usually si
Papa, by his naturalization, ngano nagpanaturalized
man sya? Na alien man sya? So gusto sya maging
Filipino. Naturalized sya, maapil iyahang mga minor
children. So unsay ilahang status? Natural born? No,
naturalized. But what if naturalized si Papa and then
nagkaanak sya after, unsay status sa mga bata?
Naturalized? No, they are already natural born
because they are already born of a Filipino father,
regardless if naturalized or natural born Filipino if you
are born of a Filipino father, you are a natural born.
Judicial Naturalization
Anyways, so let’s focus now on Judicial
Naturalization, next meeting na tong Administrative.
So this is Common Wealth Act 473. There’s a
procedure, medyo taas noh.
◆ Filing of declaration of intention with the SolGen,
one year prior to the petition. So before ka
makafile sa imong petion with before the Court
for Judicial Naturalization, muadto ka sa
SolGen .Murag ginaingon nimo “Solgen,
magpanaturalize baya ko, tan-awa daw bi kung
magqualify ba ko o dili” So ngano SolGen?
SolGen man imong kalaban diri. Declaration of
intention, so naa kay intent.
◆ Then after, kapag mahuman na ang 1 year,
magfile na ka karon sa imong petition. Now this
petition, naay mga dapat mag alleged on
jurisdictional requirements. Dili pwede mag
missing ang isa, kay kung missing ang isa, na
125
 madismiss. Accompanied by the affidavit of
proof. Pwede pud persons, etc. Tapos ipublish
pa pud na in DOJ or newspaper or General
Circulation. Failure to comply is fatal. In fact, the
period of publication is 6 months base on
subsequent law.
◆ So unsa pa? Actual Residence during the
proceedings. Dili ka pwede muhawa sa Pilipinas.
◆ Tapos hearing of the petition, of course gifile
man nimo sa court. Promulgation of the decision.
◆ And after pag promulgate sa court, naa na pud
hearing after 2years sa pag promulgate. So
determine within 2years from the promulgation,
you as the applicant did not leave the
Philippines, dedicated yourself to a lawful
coming, you have not been convicted and you
did not commit any extra-judicial to the intent.
◆ Then after, paghuman ana na time, naa pud
hearing to determine the approve. Pag human
ana, mag rule na ang court.
Now, okay, executory na ni sya so mag oath taking
na ta and issuehan na ka ng certificate of
naturalization. Oh diba dugay kaayo? Pero anyway
this is the process for Judicial Naturalization.
Ngano mag Judicial Naturalization man ko Sir na
hasta man lisura? Coz there are instances na dili na
ka mahulog sa Administrative Proceeding. So ,
muaagi jud ka ani.
Q: So kinsa man makaavail ning Judicial
Naturalization?
-must be not less than 21. Now, 18 kay nachange
man ang age of majority. You must not be less than
18 years of age on the day of the hearing of the
petition. So pwede diay ka na minor basta at the day
of the hearing di na ka minor.
- you must have resided in the Philippines within a
period not less than 10 years. Exception: provisions
- must be good moral character, believes in the
principle in the constitution, conducted himself in a
proper and irreproachable manner.
Bale tanan sa CA 473 ha. So kani, dapat tarong ka
na pagkatao.
- he must have a real estate in the Philippines not
less than P5,000. So kung naa kay mamahalong
tanom, real estate ba na? No, dapat real property. So
siguro kung naa kay lot of land para sa imong
libingan, mahulog na ka ana.
-you must have trade, business or lawful occupation.
-you must have to speak or write English or Spanish,
na karong Filipino na. Or any of the principal
Philippine languages. So writing English or Filipino.
-he must have enrolled, kung naakay children, your
minor children must be enrolled kani mga schools
recognized by the DepEd or Philippine History
Government Civic.
Diba daghan kaayo requirements. Panaturalized pa
ka?
Anyway, the 10 years of continuous residence, shall
be understood reduced to 5years. Pwede diay ka 10
years, pwede 5 lang if you have an office on the
government, established a new industry, WOW! Or
introduce a new invention. Oh diba? Being married to
a Filipino woman. What about being married to a
Filipino man? Unsa man na? Anyway, mao man ning
naa sa balaod. Having been a teacher in the
Philippines or having been born in the Philippines.
Ang 10 year period, pwede maging 5 years. So mas
paspas.
Naa tay, diba naa tay requirement na 1 years before
mufile na naay kay declaration of intention. Naay
provision in the law nagaexempt from that
requirement if you fall diri:
-if you are born in the Philippines recieved primary
education in public school
- those who have resided in the Philippines for 30
years or more before filing the application.
-if she/he have children given primary education from
public school.
Q: What do you write in the declaration of
intention?
126
A: Your intention. Your name, age, occupation,
personal description, place of birth. Etc. Etc!
Importante pud ning mga lawful entry, permanent
residence, showing information of his arrival, naay
case late na nadismiss iyaha kay wala sya
nagcomply ana.
So nagfile na ka imohang declaration of intention, so
one year after, naa na kay petition. So sa petition,
what should it contain? Triplicate copies
accompanied by two photographs. Yung two
photographs set for kani. Ay! Ayaw jud kalimtini ni
mga details: name and surname, present and former
place of occupation, plcae & date of birth,
single/married, father of the Children. Ngano walay
mother? Apparently, dili pwede ang Mama ani.
There’s an assumption na ang gapanaturalize
Filipino are males.
Anway, the name, age, birth place and residence of
the wife and each of the children, the approximate
date of his/her arrival in the Philippines, name of the
port of debarkation, complied with the requirements
of Section 5 of the law, with reside continuously in
the Philippines during the period.
So naa na kay petition, kumpleto na. Perfect! File na
ka sa court. File nimo ni sa RTC. Now, unsa man ni
obligation sa court? Ipublish nila na at your expense
this petition once a week for three consecutive weeks
in DOJ, and one of the newspaper of the General
Circulation. Also it must be posted in a public and
conspicuous place. Unsay purpose ana sir? Para
makita sa public kung muoppose ba sila sa imong
petitio, notice to the world that you are applying to be
a naturalize Filipino.
So kung naay someone who knows na disqualify ka,
they can go to Court and oppose your naturalization.
So that is the purpose.
So now, under RA 530, extended, no petition for
Filipino citizens shall be heard of the courts after
6 months from the publication of the application
required by by law. So naghulat ka for one year
before makafile sa Court, maghulat pud ka for 6
months from publication before ihear imohang
petition. Tapos naa nay hearing. So the public, and
then the SolGen, will represent the Philippines. If
after the hearing, the court believes that you have all
the qualifications then it shall order the proper
naturalization should be issued and the registration of
the naturalization certificate.
Is it automatic na pag ana sa Court na qualified ka,
naturalized na dayon ka?
NO, no decision rendering the petition becomes
effective until after two years of its promulgation
and after the court on proper hearing be satisfied
that so meaning nagrender na ang court ng decision
favorably for you, na you are qualified. Dili pa na
automatic. So maghulat pa kag two years. And within
that period, you should leave the Philippines, to
dedicate yourself, continuously you are residing in
the Philippines, you are not convicted of any offense.
Then after, mag hearing pud si Court. Tan awon niya
na. “Ah. Ok. Gicomply niya tana requirements.”
(sorry. Nawala ang audio from 130:27 to 131:03)
Diri ka muagree sa “and you have to know the
requirements”
Q: What is the effect of your naturalization?
A: If you, any woman, who is now may act here or
after she married to a citizen of the Philippines, and
who might be presumably lawfully naturalized shall
be deemed as a citizen of the Philippines. Mao ni sya
ang, what is this, for a woman. If you are an alien
woman and married to a citizen of the Philippines
and you are not disqualified under the law, you
maybe lawfully naturalized. So mas dali diay ang
alien woman, they have to be simply married. Pero
na pud procedures na ifollow and after.
So what about the children? Minor children, of
course naturalized that have been born in the
Philippines to be consider as a citizen, mao ning
derivative naturalization.
A foreign born minor child if dwelling in the
Philippines but panganak sa labas, during the
naturalization is automatically be a Philippine citizen.
127
A foreign born minor child gipanganak sa gawas,
who is not in the Philippines at the that time shall be
deemed citizen on during minority unless he begins
to reside in the Philippines.
A derivative naturalization of the children prior to the
naturalization of the father in this case. Kay kung
naturalized imong Papa, then didto pa ka gipanganak
there after, natural born filipino ka. Kani sila buhi na
ni sila, minors na ni sila and then nag naturalize
ilahang Papa. So mao ni ang conditions: Child born
outside the Philippines after the naturalization of the
parents, to be consider as Filipino citizen unless one
year after reaching the age of majority fails to
register, etc. Well, this is an old law. Our
jurisprudence already provides that if you are born
with naturalized parents, you are already consider as
natural born citizen. So murag nakwan na ni sya,
wala pay explicit ruling saying that ineffective but our
jurisprudence will provide that if you are a child of a
naturalized Filipino born after naturalize, you are
already a natural born.
Republic vs Dela Rosa
GR No. 104654
June 06, 1994
favorable to him to follow.
Held: Here, daghan kaayo sya mali in the petition,
etc. Unsa pa? Wala niya gistate sa iyahang petition
good moral character. So remember the
requirements of the law, kung unsay gistate, you
have to istate them, otherwise dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. Such absence of those is fatal to the
petition. Likewise, the petitioner should have a
affidavit of good moral character with atleast two
credible persons who vouched for his good moral
character. Isa ni sa mga requirements under the
revised. Diba naa to ganiha sa gienurmerate na to,
required ni siya. Wala niya gibutang, dismissed!
And proceedings and the court, irregular. Kani
gienumerate sa court, heard within 6 months when
the last publicate. Within 6 months ha. Diba within 6
months ang publication. Heard before the finality of
the decision. Diba naa pa toy 2 years. Ana ang
Supreme Court, naunsa man ni? Nagkamali, nullify
ang decision. Illegal in other words.
Go vs Republic
GR No. 202809
July 02, 2014

Facts: Si Fervaldo, he wants to run for public office.

Required sa iyahang na natural born Filipino sya.
So karon, Is it really required na natural born citizen
sya? Unsa lang? Filipino Citizen. So this is just
alocal positioon, apparently. So petition for
naturalization, file na sya. So now karon, ang
hearing sa iyahang oetition is March 16, 1992.
Karon later on, nagmanifest sya “Mudagan baya ko
Court. Mudagan ko pagkapolitiko. So paspasi na
maong hearing basig dili na ko muqualify.” And the
Court agreed. So instead of March 16, Feb 1,1992
na. Tan awon nimo ang oublication requirement,
nameet ba diri? Ang declaration of intention nameet
ba? So anyway, nagpadayon ang hearing february
1, 1992 and 6 days later, the Judge granted the
petition. Ana ang Supreme Court, what was that?
That was full of procedure cross, and that decision
therefore is an anomaly. Im already telling you, very
strict ang Court when we file naturalization
judicially. Duty bound ta to follow the procedures
prescribe by the law except for the applicants who
decide for himself kung unsay provision na

128
Facts: So kani, epmhasized the importance sa
katong affidavit of the witnesses to prove that you
are a good moral character. The witnesses
themselves must be of a good moral character. So
unsa man ni ilahang, what is this, credibility na you
are with good moral character when they
themselves do not have such a good moral
character. And it is the burden of the applicant to
prove that those witnesses are qualified and with
good moral characteristics.
IIssue: Here, ang allegation they lose evidence to
prove that those witnesses were credible . Was he
naturalized?
Held: No, again they are strict on those who seeks
to acquire naturalization. Must prove to the
satisfaction of the court that they complied with all
the requirements of the law. Why? Coz this
citizenship is not a commodity na kuhaon lang nimo
because it is convenient to you. You have to comply
with the requirements of the law. A naturalization
case is not an ordinary contest judicial coming. It is
in fact, not a right but a privilege. Being a privilege,
follow the provisions to be able to enjoy the
privilege.
So anyway, there are two ways to be naturalized.
Generally, Judicially or administratively. Judicially
under CA 473 and Administratively under RA 9139.
So Mr. Go Judicially CA 473. You have to comply
with that strictly, either judicially or administratively,
strict jud imong compliance dapat.
Here, Under CA 473 sya, dapat naay substantial
and formal compliance with the law. Ang isa sa mga
requirements is that you have to present atleast two
character witnesses to support your allegations,
affidavit. Pag abot sa Court, ipakita tong mga
witnesses. Those witnesses should be credible to
testify to your good moral character. The court listed
requirements for this witnesses: citizen, credible
persons, personally know the petitioner, morally
approachable, he has all the qualifications, not
disqualified.
Here, the witnesses did not establish their
qualifications to stand as witnesses in such
proceeding. In other word, the witnesses were not
credible. He did not proved that the witnesses has
good standing. Dapat sila pud, dili lang ang
applicant. So unsay ilahang credibility? He should
prove that they are a good standing in the
community, they are honest and upright, trustworthy
and reliable. Wala nya naprove in this case. So their
affidavit as if did not exist.
Republic vs Batuigas
GR No. 183110
October 07, 2013
Facts: Azucena, nag apply sya, a wife of a Filipino.
Alien sya. She wanted to a acquire a Filipino
citizenship by derivative naturalization. Wala sya
kapasa sa requirements sa Bureau of Immigration
for some reason. So karon niundergo sya sa
Judicial route. Anyway, how many ways of
naturalization? RA 9139 and CA 473. There’s a
third option if you are an alien. Derivative
Naturalization which is applicable to alien women
married to Filipino husbands under CA 473. So
pwede diay mag minyo kag Pinoy then procedure is
abbreviated.
Held: Foreign women who are married to Filipino
citizen who want to acquire Filipino Citizen, it is not
necessary for them to prove that they posses other
qualifications for naturalization. They did not have to
undergo, in fact dili sya naturalization. Shortened
ang process. In fact, in jurisprudence, an alien
woman who married a Filipino, native or
naturalized, becomes a Filipina provided she’s not
disqualify to be a Philippine Citizen. Dili ni sya
automatic, naa pay procedure na ifollow.
Mao ning ifollow:
file a petition for the cancellation of your ACR
alledging she’s married to a Filipino Citizen and
accompanied by joint affidavit. The petitioner, the
woman should prove na dili sya disqualified. So dili
na ka muaagi og Court.
When will be derivative naturalization denied? If
dili ka mupaso. Wala giapprove katong procedure
for married aliens to Filipino Citizen. It doesn’t mean
na nadeny ka sa derivative naturalization, dili na ka
pwede maka-CA 473 or other proceedings. So
pwede ka mujudicial if gusto ka maging Filipino.
Take note, the court said that there is no such thing
as a Judicial Declaration of Citizenship.
129
 REPUBLIC vs GO PEING HUNG
GR No. 212785
April 04, 2018
Facts: Wala niya gicomply ang declaration of
intention, details of his arrival in the Philippines and
certificate of arrival that should be attached to the
petition. Gigrant iyahang petition pero girevert sa
Supreme Court. You must attached Certificate of
Arrival to the petition for naturalization because you
have to prove that you entered the country legally,
and not by unlwaful means because otherwise your
stay in the Philippines is a warranted from the start.
The failure to do so is fatal to the application for
naturalization even if you acquired this permanent
residence status.
Issue: So here, Dili ba pwede na dili mag attach og
Certificate of Arrival kay naa na tong Arrival details
sa Declaration of Intention?
Held: Ana ang Supreme Court, NO. Certificate of
Arrival is different from Declaration of Intention. The
latter is important to prove that the petitioner
entered the country, not illegal. Strict compliance is
always a statutory requirements and necessary
before you become naturalize. The absence of a
single requirement is fatal to the application for
naturalization.
CITIZENSHIP
Currently, after the 1935 Constitution, duha nalang
ang modes of acquiring citizenship, that is the jus
sanguinis and naturalization. We also learned kinsa
ang natural born citizens, unsa pud ang status sa
mga foundlings, who are naturalized citizens under
kadtong judicial naturalization, no, that proceeding
there.
We also learned kadtong election requirement for
those who are born under the 1935 constitution, unsa
tong requirements, diba naa man toy tulo? So take
note of those three, kabalo na pud ta sa general rule
kung you are an illegitimate child, whose citizenship
do you follow, there is an exception to that, we
already discussed that last meeting, and so we had
also a discussion on CA 473, kadtong judicial
naturalization, so we will continue our discussion on
Naturalization, we will finish citizenship this week.
Before we go to the administrative way for us to be
naturalized, naa tay ipang discuss, continue ta sa
discussion sa naturalization and denaturalization,
we’ll also discuss loss and reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship, how do you lose your citizenship and how
do you reacquire it? The concept of dual citizenship
and dual allegiance, unsa diri ang dili pwede-- which
of these two is inimical to the Philippines, foundlings,
nag discuss na ta ana, we’ll just refresh our memory
and mga instances na dapat ka natural born Filipino
for you to be able to hold public office. So kani tong
mga positions na gina kontesta no, in many cases
because, unsa siya, a requirement, so ginakasuhan
tong isa ka candidate because among others dili siya
qualified, because they are not natural born.
So we’ll learn kung unsa tong mga positions na
kailangan ka natural born for you to be able to validly
hold it. So balik ta sa atong discussion on CA 473
otherwise known as kadtong Judicial Naturalization
Law, Naa tay mga cases nga idiscuss, for example
Republic vs. Li Ching Chung, ano? Very important as
we emphasized last meeting na very strict ang atong
courts when we talk about naturalization through
kaning judicial--well in any proceeding no na gusto ka
maging Pinoy, through naturalization, strikto jud ang
pag treat sa imong application, and this is
emphasized in the cases we’ll be discussing.
REPUBLIC VS. LI CHING CHUNG
So after this person, almost 7 months after filing his declaration
of intention-- take note unsa gani ka dugay dapat an period
before ka nga nag file ka, and then that period before ka maka-
file ug petition, ha? Diba naay one-year period in the filing of the
petition for declaration of intention-- before you can file your
petition before the appropriate court. Here, 7 months after filing
his declaration of intention, he filed his petition, so dira pa lang,
kita na nimo na there is already a defect, so the petition was set
for hearing on April 3, notice was posted, compliant sa notice,
compliant pud sa nag file pud siya ug petition, pero ang defect
diri is kining period, no?
For the filing of the petition, ang kadtong period na dapat i-
observe, before you file your petition, and eventually the trial
court granted his application for naturalization. This was affirmed
by the CA and the Court of Appeals held that while it was filed
less than one year from the time of declaration of intent before
the SolGen, the defect daw was not fatal. So ana ang Supreme
Court, you are wrong, Court of Appeals, no.
130
The petition--the application should have been denied by the trial
court, remember, very explicit ang provision, one year prior
to the filing of his petition for admission for Philippine
citizenship, the applicant shall file before the Solicitor
General a declaration under oath of his bonafide intentions,
so there is that express requirement of a one year period na
imohang hulaton or imohang i-comply before you can file your
petition. You first file the declaration of intention before the Office
of Solicitor General, wait for one year, at least one year, and then
file na ka sa imong petition. Here, that was not observed.
What is the purpose nganong naa pa man nay one year, dugay
dugay lang ni?
Ana ang Supreme Court, this period of one year required is
the time fix for the state to make inquiries to the
qualifications of this person. This is to give the state the ability
to determine if you are karapat dapat to become a Filipino citizen
through naturalization, if this period of time is not given to the
state, it will have no opportunity to investigate the qualification of
the applicants and gather evidence thereon, so mao na siya
ginahatag na siya sa state for it to be able to inspect if you are
qualified. It will give the government ample time to screen and
examine the qualifications of an applicant and to measure his
good intention and sincerity of purpose. It will unmask the true
intentions of those who seek Philippine citizenship for selfish
reasons alone, etc.
So kadto siya, mao jud ang purpose, so this cannot be
shortened, because again, this proceeding, this naturalization
proceedings are embedded, naa siyay public interest, infused
with public interest so in fact the presumption is not in favor of
you getting that citizenship, but rather, it is against you and is in
favor of the state.
As we’ve learned before, the general rule is that there is no such
thing as presumption of citizenship, it is challenged, you have to
prove na citizen ka, except lang kadtong foundlings na explicit
ang Supreme Court sa kadtong 2 cases na gi-discuss nato na if
you are a foundling in the Philippines, and you are able to prove
that you are a foundling in the Philippines, naay presumption na
you are a natural born citizen and your parents are uhh your
biological parents are both Filipinos but the general rule, there’s
no presumption of citizenship, so mao ni siya, give the state the
ability.
What about substantial compliance, seven months, so unsa man
na siya? More than ½ na man na, more than ½ of 12 months,
substantial compliance na na, ana ang Supreme Court, no! Very
clear ang requirement sa law, it must be filed one year prior,
otherwise, kung substantial compliance, gi-delete nalang na
provision, no? May pag gibutang nalang na one year or less.
Explicit, no? Must be filed one year prior to the filing, so it cannot
be interpreted otherwise. There is an exception, however in the
law, na dili na ka kailangan magfile ug declaration, we
mentioned this last meeting, Sec. 6, if you are born in the
Philippines and you have received your primary and
secondary education in schools that are recognized by the
government, and have resided continuously in the
Philippines for a period of 30 years, they may be naturalized
without having to make this declaration of intention. So naay
exception sa balaod, in this case, he does not fall, Li Ching
Chung does not fall into the category of such exempt individuals
that will excuse him from the filing of that declaration of intention,
so covered siya by the 1 year requirement. So kaning discussion
sa court, burden of proof is upon the applicant to show full
compliance, full and complete, so strict kaayo ang atong courts
ani. The opportunity for a foreigner to become a citizen is a mere
matter of grace, it is a privilege, not a matter of right. So if it is a
privilege, you have to comply with the requirements to be able to
enjoy that privilege, and the only right that a foreigner has, is to
be given the chance to be a Filipino citizen, which the law offers
upon him. To acquire that right, you must need to comply with all
the statutory conditions and requirements.
CO vs. CIVIL REGISTER
So there's this kaning mag igsuon, si Hubert Co and
Arlene Co. They are born to Chinese parents. Now,
their father filed an application for naturalization with
the special committee on naturalization under the
existing letter of instruction (LOI 270). So naa pud
diay way before, kaning ing ani na method of
naturalization before, so nagpa- naturalize si father
under this, and it was granted, and he was
conferred Filipino citizenship, so naa na siyay-- so
naturalized Filipino na siya, and he took his oath as
a Philippine citizen. Now, kadtong duha kabuok
minor children, when they reached the age of
majority, filed with the trial court a petition under
Rule 108 for the correction of the entries of their
certificates of birth on the ground that when they
were still minors, their father became a Filipino
citizen by naturalization, and by derivative
naturalization, nahimo na ud sila ug Filipino
citizens-- naturalized Filipino citizens. So, by
derivative acquisition, gi-deny sa trial court ang
ilahang petition on the ground that ang inyong papa,
natagaan ug naturalization under LOI 270, and in
relation to PD 1055 and not under CA 473.
According to the court, wala daw provision na
pareha sa CA 473 na naay derivative effect ang
naturalization sa father. So mao to ilang argument,
na the case which the Supreme Court, the ground
that--pareha na man ni sila, this LOI and CA 473
are designed to be on citizenship and hence, to be
construed together. So ana ang SC diri in this case,
both of these are laws that govern the naturalization
of qualified aliens. They provide for different
procedures, CA 473 is judicial, LOI--naturalization
by presidential decree, both of them have the same
purpose and objective and that is to enable aliens
who are permanently residing here in the
Philippines to become Filipino citizens, mao na both
ilahang goal. These laws are statutes in pari
materia. Absent therefore, an express repeal of
Sec. 15 of the earlier law, which is CA 473, and the
later, the LOI 270, that provision in the old law (CA
473), should be read into the latter law, kay wala
131
man siya gi-tanggal. So they should be construed
and therefore kung unsa ang benefit in the Sec. 15
of CA 473, which extends the grant of Philippine
citizenship to the minor child after the parent is
naturalized, should also be similarly applied to the
minor children of those naturalized under LOI 270
(the children in this case). Ana ang SC, i-apply nato
ni unya wala man to gi-repeal, did they avail here of
the proper remedy, ana ang SC, yes, for the
correction of the entries under Rule 108. So take
note that according to this case, a proper remedy
because the matter covered by the correction of the
entries includes the fact of naturalization, it is
covered by this procedure, na kung gusto nimo ipa-
revise, ipa amend, pwede ka mag-avail ani nga
procedure.
REPUBLIC VS. ONG
This talks about the income requirements, so last
meeting, under CA 473, nag mention ta na dapat
you should be gainfully employed. So this is the
requirement that was the issue in this case. So si
Ong, nag-apply siya for judicial naturalization, ang
iyahang allegation is that businessman daw siya,
earning since 1989 with an average annual income
of Php 150,000 etc.
However, specify the nature and business
(daghan syag mga business) gipang state dadto
ang iyang mga annual income for the following
years, the application said that he does not possess
a lucrative trade profession or lawful occupation.
So is he qualified?
The supreme court said. No. His application for
naturalization should be denied based on
jurisprudence, the qualification of some known
lucrative trade profession or lawful occupation
means not only that the person having the
employment gets enough for his ordinary necessity,
not enough nga mabuhi ka sa imong income barely,
it must be shown that there is an appreciable
margin of his income over his expenses. As to
be able to provide an for adequate support in
the event of unemployment, sickness, or
disability to work and thus avoid in becoming a
burden or liability to the state. So dapat nay
appreciable margin over his expenses. Otherwise
your trade will not be considered lucrative. His
income should permit him and the members of his
family to live with reasonable comfort in accordance
with the prevailing standard of living, consistent with
the demands of human dignity at this stage of our
civilization. So dapat di ka mamulubi.
If the spouse (ikaw lang nag apply) apilon ba nimo
ang income sa imong spouse? Supreme court said
in this case said that the income should be
excluded because the income of the spouse is
immaterial. Because the applicant should be the
one to possess this lucrative trade profession or
lawful occupation otherwise. Kato dapat iyang
asawa ang magpanaturalize. Here the SC said he
failed to meet the qualification. His witnesses
testified that he is a businessman, but cannot
identify his business. He provided no documentary
evidence like business permit, registration, official
receipts, and other business records. Instead, he
relied on his general assertions to prove his
possession of some known lucrative trade or
profession. So their general assertions cannot
discharge the burden of proof, you have to prove
your allegation especially here that it is very difficult
132
 and pag construe sa court.
Income. Assuming naprove niya ang iyang income.
His gross income, not net income, may have been
sufficient to meet his family’s basic needs, but there
is no sufficient proof that it was enough to pay the
appreciable margin of income over expenses. So
dapat net income, to see if there is an appreciable
margin. So take note, you have to prove your
lucrative trade with proper documentation.
Dapat maprove pud nimo and appreciable margin.
So dili pwede nga gross income ra ang imong
ipakita, dapat ipakita nimo ang expenses apil ang
net. So, mabuhi na ba ta ani annually? So here he
was not able to prove that, so denied ang iyang
application.
Disqualifications for naturalization:
The following cannot be naturalized as Philippine
citizens under CA 473
1. Persons opposed to organized government or
affiliated with any association or groups of
persons who uphold each and opposing all
organized governments. Kinsa mana sila?
2. Persons defending or teaching the necessity
or propriety of violence; personal assault or
assassination predominance of their ideas;
polygamists or believers in the practice of
polygamy.
3. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral
turpitude (mga estapadaor).
4. Persons suffering from mental alienation, or
incurable contagious diseases.
5. Persons who have not mingled socially
(racist) or have the sincere desire to embrace
the customs and ideals of the Filipinos (in
other words nag apply lang ka for
naturalization for your convenience), wala kay
interest to become, to take part in the culture
of the Filipinos. You should be able to prove
that you have evinced a sincere desire to
learn and embrace the Filipino customs
traditions and ideals precisely because you
want to be naturalized as a Filipino.
6. Citizens or subject of nations with whom US
and Philippines are at war during the period of
such war. (karaan na balaod)
7. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other
than the United States, whose laws do not
grant Filipinos the right to be naturalized
(reciprocity: so dapat kuntahay foreigner ka,
magpanaturalized ka diri, so your own country
should also allow such law such as Filipinos
to be naturalized too: dapat fair). If you cannot
prove that there is such reciprocity in your
country for those Filipinos who want to be
naturalized in your country then that could be
a ground for your disqualification. Remember
the case of Carbasi (lenient ang treatment sa
iyaha because he was a refugee).
Judicial way (take note of the requirements and the
disqualifications)
Administrative naturalization Law RA 9139
This is the law, its policy is it shall control and
regulate the admission and integration of aliens into
the Philippines. Therefore these people? Aliens born
and residing in the Philippines may be granted
Philippine citizenship by administrative proceedings
subject to certain requirements. So this is not
applicable to all.
Who are qualified?
1. RESIDENCY - Aliens born and residing in the
Philippines since birth. So kung dili ka diri
gipanganak since birth, you can avail the judicial
process.
Must be residents in the Philippines from the time
they were born or “from birth”. The minimum
residency requirement therefore is 18 years because
they must have to be here and stayed here from the
time they are born up to the time the application is
filed. In administrative naturalization, the residency
requirement is changed to from birth because this is
especially applicable to those who were born here
but have remained to be foreigners and has not
become Filipinos. To make it easier for them, they
are allowed to file for a decree of naturalization
administratively.
2) AGE - must have to be legal age (not less than 18
years old) at the time that he filed the petition
(meaning age of majority naka).
3) CHARACTER - good moral character, believes on
the underlying principle of the constitution, conducted
himself in a proper and irreproachable manner. In
other words tarong ka nga pagkatao.
133
4) EDUCATION - He/she must have received his
primary and secondary education in any public
school or private education institution duly
recognized by the DEPED where Philippine history,
government and civic are taught provided that he/she
minor children of school age, he/she must have
enrolled then in similar schools.
Unlike in judicial naturalization wherein education is
only required for children, this refers to the applicant
also. From birth, he must have studied in Philippine
schools and these schools must have to teach
Philippine Government and Constitution.
5) PROFESSION - The applicant must have known
trade business profession or lawful occupation from
which he/she derives incomes sufficient for his/her
support.
If he/she is married and has dependence also that of
his or her family (masuportaan pud niya).
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. So medyo nay leniency.
6. Must Able to read and write and speak Filipino
or any dialect from the Philippines and must have
mingled with Filipinos and evinced shown a
sincere desire to learn and embrace the customs,
traditions and ideals.
Dapat mameet ang minimum qualifications.
Take note that under the law not all aliens may avail
of this remedy. Only native born aliens who have
been residing here in the Philippines all their
lives, who never saw any other country and all along
thought that they were Filipinos and who have
demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines, and
affinity to customs and traditions of Filipinos. In other
words, your parents are foreigners, but diria ka
gipanganak, you can avail this one
Procedural requirements
What do you file?
1. There is declaration of intention. File a petition.
A person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship
through administrative naturalization shall file it with
the Special Commission on Naturalization (not sa
court kay dili man sya judicial, administrative
man siya) which is with the DOJ. You have to set
forth the sufficient form or else madismiss nang
imong petition:
Name, Surname, Present and former place of
residence, place and date of birth, trade business
or profession/occupation, and if married, also his
or her spouse. If he/she is single or married or if
his/her marriage is annulled, also state his/her
date of marriage ug sa iyang spouse (date of birth
and citizenship), if annulled (date of decree of
annulment. If the applicant/petitioner has children
(name and date and birthplace, residences of
his/her children)
Declaration of witnesses of the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications under the law shall
never be a public charge or liability, and if this is
true, honest intention to acquire Philippine
citizenship is to renounce absolutely and forever
his former citizenship and embrace the state
sovereign and particularly the country of this
applicant is a citizen or subject. You have to
embrace the whole Filipino citizen, you should
really renounce your former citizenship. Take
note of this documents if ever magfile mo ani.
Affidavit of financial capacity -this should be
notarized
Sworn statements on the good moral character of
this petitioner, that this too of good reputation.
Remember the case before that he was not able to
prove the credibility of his witnesses. You should
prove that you are of good reputation.
At least 2 people, they should be of good reputation
as well, so that their statement are with credibility
attesting that you are of good moral character.
For a period of 10 years (you should have known
the witnesses)
Medical certificate - that the applicant is not a user
of prohibited drugs or otherwise drug dependent or
afflicted with aids.
He or she is not a drug dependent and the applicant
is not afflicted with AIDS. School diploma and
transcripts of records of the schools he attended in
the Philippines.
If he or she has minor children, a certification that the
children are enrolled in a school where a Philippine
history government and civil were taught and part of
the curriculum.
And, if he is gainfully employed the income tax return
for the past three years. Naa na pud ning 3-3 so, ITR
nimo no para makita ang net. Ah, okay, dili negative.
134
Where do you file your petition? On court? Dili
because administrative sya special committee on
naturalization.
What is the composition? Where is this? So this is
apparently, composed of the Solicitor General as
the chairman, the Secretary of the Foreign Affairs
or his representatives, and the National Security
Adviser as members. This is the committee that has
the power to approve, deny or reject applications for
naturalization. So, you file it with this committee.
What is the procedure?
If the alien believes that he is or that he has all
the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications, that alien may file an
application for naturalization with the special
committee. Pay the processing fee. Indicate the
dates of the filing and within 15 days from the
receipt of the petition the committee shall
determine if it is complete and substance aning
form so tana-awun nila kung tama naa ba ang
material allegations, naa bay proof attached to
prove his allegations. Now if it is found to be
wanting in substance and form, it can be
dismissed without prejudice. What do you mean
dismissed without prejudice? Meaning, pwede ka
magrefile. Kay dili man ni sya dismissal on the
merits. So, naa siguro ni order nga gidismiss sya
so you can refile it. Observing kung unsa tung
mga grounds nganung gidismiss sya. So, imong
iimprove imong petition pero nakabayad nakag
fee. If the petition is complete meaning nakalusot
naka sa first screening. The committee shall
immediately publish the pertinent portions
thereof and indicating the name, qualifications
and other person circumstance of the applicant.
once a week for three consecutive weeks in the
newspaper of general circulation and have copies
of the petition posted in any public or any
conspicuous area.
The committee will also furnish the DFA, the BI, the
civil registrar and the NBI with copies of the petition.
What is the purpose? Para maaware sila nga nay
nagapply for judicial naturalization, so makacomment
pud sila og uy kani sya oh unsa ni sya blacklisted ni
o estafador.
Those agencies will have copies thereof and within
30 days from receipt of the petition, they will submit
to committee a report stating that whether or not this
person has any derogatory record.
So nahuman nato, within 60 days within the receipt of
the report from the agencies. Meaning hutdon pa
diay tung mga agencies dri. Pero naa may timeframe
so dapat within 30 days.
After nareceive na ni tanan ni committee, within 60
days of receipt of the report or which were furnished
of a copy of the petition for the date of the last
publication of the petition whichever comes later, the
committee shall consider and review all the relevant
and material information.
So ilahang iassess kung qualified ba ka. It may call
you, the applicant, the petitioner for interview to ask
for his identity. So pwede pud ka ‘may’ man sya
pwede nga dili itawag. Base lang sa imuhang
submissions, pwede na sya igrant, pwede pud dili.
If the committee should have receive an information
adverse to the petition, the committee shall allow the
petitioner to answer, explain or refute the information.
So, tagaan kag chance to be heard, dili outright
dismissal if naa sila sa case of assessment. Tan-
awun nila katung nakalusot naka tung initial
screening of forms and substance karun ang
tanawun nila after receiving the report tagaan ka
nilag chance to explain or refute the information so
dili sya madismiss outright if naan aka dria nga
stage.
If the committee believes in view of the facts before it
that the petitioner has all of the qualifications and
none of the disqualifications, it shall approve the
petition and henceforth notify the petitioner of the fact
of such approval. Kung dli then it will disapprove the
same.
The applicant shall pay the committee of the
naturalization fee of P100,000.00. Payable as
follows: a) 50k upon approval of the petition, b.)
50k upon taking the oath of allegiance,
immediately a certificate of allegiance shall be
issued.
What is the duty of the BI?
Within 5 days after the applicant has taken his oath.
The Bureau of Immigration shall forward a copy of
petitioner’s oath in the proper local civil registrar. The
BI shall cancel the ACR of the applicant. (Nganung
nay ACR? Alien man ka from the start so registered
135
dapat ka in other words kay unsa may icancel sa BI
kung wala diay ka naregister.)
What happens to the alien wife and minor children?
After the approval of the petition for administrative
naturalization and cancellation of his
ACR, the applicant’s alien lawful wife and minor
children may file a petition for cancellation. Diretso
na of their ACR with the committee subject with the
payment of the filing fee of 20k and naturalization fee
of 40k. Dili na sila muagi atong process na giagian sa
lalaki.
What if ang wife ang nagfile for naturalization?
The approval of the petition for administrative
naturalization will not benefit her alien husband.
Other words, alien husband will apply himself but her
minor children may file a petition for cancellation of
the ACR subject to the requirement of the existing
laws.
Now, even if naa ka atung mga qualifications nga
nagpuyo ka diri, gaskwela ka dri, 18 years old naka,
you cannot be naturalized if you fall under any of the
disqualifications set forth pursuant to R.A 9139.
The following are not qualified to be naturalized
under this law. (Almost pareha lang sya with CA
473.)
a. opposed to organized government or affiliated
with any association or group of persons who uphold
and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments; (unsaon kaha ni sya pagprove sa
state that you are opposed to an organized
government. Obvious if you are terrorist or
belongs to the group who condones violence, dili
jud ka manaturalize.)
b. Those defending or teaching the necessity of
or propriety of violence, personal assault or
assassination for the success or predominance of
their ideas;
c. Polygamists or believers in the practice of
polygamy;
d. Those convicted of crimes involving moral
turpitude; (isa dria ang estafa)
e. Those suffering from mental alienation or
incurable contagious diseases;
f. Those who, during the period of their
residence in the Philippines, have not mingled
socially with 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 with whom the Philippines
is at war, during the period of such war; and
h. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country
whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to be
naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Denaturalization meaning naturalized ka pero
tanggalan ka ato nga status. It is a process by which
the state revokes or cancels someone’s citizenship
because the person have done something that
undermines his very right to that status. It only
applies only to naturalized individuals.
If the ground affect the intrinsic validity of the
proceedings, the naturalization shall divest even the
wife and the children of the derivative naturalization.
If the ground is personal to the denaturalized person,
his wife and children nga nakuhaan og derivative
naturalization shall retain the Philippine citizenship.
An action for denaturalization does not prescribe.
(Anytime pwede maraise ang issue of citizenship
particularly if you have acquired it through
naturalization.) The same laws that provide for
judicial and administrative naturalization ang
nagbutang sa grounds.
Grounds for denaturalization under CA 473: Upon
motion in the proper proceedings by the SolGen, the
competent judge (sa court nimo sya ifile because
gikuha nimo ang imong naturalization judicially) may
cancel the naturalization certificate issued and its
registration in the local civil registrar;
(a) If it finds that the naturalized person or his duly
authorized representative made any false statement
or misrepresentation or committed any violation of
law, rules and regulations in connection with the
petition for naturalization, or if he otherwise obtains
Philippine citizenship fraudulently or illegally, the
certificate of naturalization shall be cancelled;( if the
certificate was obtained fraudulently/fixer)
(b) If the naturalized person or his wife, or any of his
minor children who acquire Filipino citizenship by
virtue of his naturalization shall, within five (5) years
next following the grant of Philippine citizenship,
establish permanent residence in a foreign country,
that individual’s certificate of naturalization or
acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or revoked:
136
Provided, That the fact of such person’s remaining
for more than one (1) year in his country of origin, or
two (2) years in any foreign country, shall be
considered prima facie evidence of intent to
permanently reside therein; (so dapat magpuyo ka
sa pilipinas for 5 years pag naapprove na unya
nibalik ka sa imong lugar so, isa to sa ground for
denaturalization so you have to embrace
Philippines for 5years.)
(c) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with
acquired citizenship allows himself or herself to be
used as a dummy in violation of any constitutional or
legal provision requiring Philippine citizenship as a
condition for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a
right, franchise or privilege, the certificate of
naturalization or acquired citizenship shall be
cancelled or revoked; and
(d) If the naturalized person or his wife or child with
acquired citizenship commits any act inimical to
national security, the certificate of naturalization or
acquired citizenship shall be cancelled or revoked.
Ra 9139, the special committee may cancel
certification of naturalization the issued certificate
under the law in the following cases:
a. Obtained certification fraudulently. Wala
nakabutang kung kinsa ang magfile. It states that it
may be cancelled if it finds out. So pwede motu
proprio or someone could challenge it based on this
grounds.
If the naturalized person or his wife or an of this line
or children or ah shall within 5 years, same noh.
Katong 5 years na muhawa sa Philippines and
establish residence outside; used as a dummy
himself and his/her spouse or children he all or he
commits any act enemy con to national security ha
terrorist so those are the ground na ma-ani,
macancel or macancel imong certificate of
naturalization under RA 9139 so if you got your, if
you are naturalized under this law, you have to be
careful to not commit any of these acts noh as they
are grounds for the cancellation of your
naturalization.
If ang grounds is a CFR 473 ah if you got your
naturalization under ah if naturally you know CFR
473, pwede ka mutan-aw sa grounds.
Now, so kabalo na tah aah sap ag acquire sa
citizenship which is are sa how katong modes noh of
acquiring use sanguinis and then naturalization.
Now let’s discuss the instances when you lose your
citizenship and then unsa pud ang ways na ma-
reacquire nimo imong Nawala nga citizenship. Ang
napanaw nga gugma, ang napanaw nga citizenship.
So Let’s first discuss loss noh. How do you lose and
how do you reacquire. Its all the.. Its actually in the
constitution. Article 4 Section 3. So gidiscuss na nato
ang Section 1 ug 2 sa article 4 ha. Naa na ko sa
section 3. Philippine citizenship maybe lost or
reacquired in the manner provided by law. Is this a
self-executing provision? Nooo! Because klaro kaayo
in the manner provided by law there must be a law
that uh should enable this provision.
So unsa man? Naa ba tay balaod ana sir? Yes, noh,
naa sa inyong syllabus CA 63 this is the law – an act
providing for the ways in each Philippine Citizenship
may be lost or reacquired. So unsa ang mga
instances in this law na mawala ang imohang Citi-
Let’s focus first on losing your citizenship under this
law.
A Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship in any of the
following ways. So meaning applicable ni sya sa
katong mga natural born Filipinos ha. Number 1, by,
so kung naturalized ka, katong CA 473 under RA
9139 a-apil pud ka diri. Noh. If you are a natural born
Filipino, kani ang mga grounds nga mawalaan kag
citizenship.
Naturalization in a foreign country – So muadto ka ug
Canada, magpa naturalize ka didto. This is a ground
under this law.
Number 2 by express enunciation – gisalikway nako
akong Filipino sir- it’s so hard to be a Filipino, I want
to go to Mars ha – mga tripper diha ninyo nga mga
post. Its so hard to be a- by express enunciation so
unsa ba ay mag trip ka ba nga ay dili na ko gusto
maging pinoy because corrupt ang government, noh
I, I want to get out of this country etc. That express
enunciation? Hmmm we’ll see.
Subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laws of a foreign country at attaining
the age of 21 pa ni noh ah nga time. Age of Majority
provided that a Filipino may not digress himself of his
citizenship who, while it is at war with any counties.
So you subscribe an oath of allegiance and niadto
137
naka didto sa Canada, noh, or sa Japan unya nagpa
naturalize ka, natural naa man pud nah sa ilang
procedure imong pag take ug oath, oh, kung mas
Makita nga nag subsbcribe ka ug oath of allegiance –
That is a ground for you to lose your citizenship ha.
Di naka loyal in other words sa atoang constitution.
You are allegiant to the constitution of another
country.
By rendering services to or accepting commissions in
the armed forces of a foreign country ah so nay
qualifications ani provided it will not by best a Filipino
or this Fili- if the following circumstances is present.
That the Philippines has a defensive or offensive act
with that country nga nag serve ka, and uh turned
maintain armed forces in the Philippine territory with
the consent of the Republic of the Philippines. Naa
pa juy mga additional provisos – The Filipino citizen
concerned ha, uh states that he does, does so that
he took the… He rendered the service or took the
commission, he does so only in connection with this
service to that foreign country and provided finally
that any given Filipino who is rendering service to or
is commissioned in the armed forces of that foreign
country shall not be permitted to participate nor vote
in any election during the period of the service or
commission in that country. Upon his discharge from
the service of that foreign country, he shall
automatically be entitled to the full entitled to the full
civic and political rights of a Filipino citizen.
Alright. Five, o kani para sa mga naturalized. By the
cancellation of the certificates of naturalization,
obviously,
Six, Having been declared by competent authority, a
deserter of Philippine armed forces in times of war
oh, unless being repardoned or amnesty is granted;
and in case of a woman, grabe, in case of a woman
- nganong walay apil ang man? Woman, upon her
marriage to a foreigner if by virtues of the laws of,
enforced of the country of the alien husband, she
acquires his nationality.
Right. Ah, naa pa juy provisions sa how you
reacquire under this law. We wo;; discuss more in the
subsequent meetings. You can reacquire imong
citizenship nga Nawala nimo because committed
those acts, noh. Number one, by naturalization. Balik
n apud ka pagpa naturalize ha. By repatriation. Or by
direct act of congress noh. Sauna national assembly.
Okay.
So let’s focus on the laws of citizenship.
Naturalization in a foreign country. Katong gimention
nako, nagpa naturalize ka sa Canada or sa Japan.
Except if one avails the provisions of RA 9225 or the
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.
Very important piece of legislation, we’ll discuss that
thoroughly noh.
Now, naturalization in another country does not
necessarily result in the loss of Filipino citizenship
after naging effective ning RA 9225 because it is a
law of retainership and reacquisition. Now take note,
kani sya nga ah retention and reacquisition it took
effect when this law took effect noh.
So Filipinos who after the effectivity of this law
become citizens for a foreign country may reacquire
it meaning uhh retain sila oh retained ang ilang
Filipino citizenship. They can reacquire it by taking –
merely taking an oath of allegiance. Di sila kailangan
magpa naturalize in the first place, under this law if
you have years of naturalize noh, uhh, in a foreign
country retained ang imong Filipino citizenship.
In other words, what you have to do is take an oath
of allegiance to reacquire it. So this is if you do, if you
take your oath of naturalization, if you have your
naturalization outside the country after the effectivity
of RA 9225. What about those who uh, who are
naturalized prior to effectivity of RA 9225. There is a
period noh, nga prior to the effectivity of law, Nawala
jud ilang citizenship because prior to that unsa man
applicable law? Katong ganiha, CA 63? So in other
end, in that law, it provides ng ana- you lose your
citizenship by way of naturalization. But after the
effectivity of RA 9225, wala na ba silay remedy?
Unsa man ilang himuon? Magpanaturalize na lang
sila? There is noh, we will discuss that in a case. Na
apud silay reacquisition. Katong mga nawalaan ug –
mga nagpanaturalize outside after the effectivity, they
can uh what this is, they retain it and all they have to
do is to take an oath of allegiance. But those who lost
it because they did it prior to the effectivity of RA
9225 they may reacquire it.
Uh express enunciation as mentioned earlier,
conscious, voluntary and intelligent enunciation, not
implied – It is a renunciation made known distinctly
138
and explicitly and not led to inference or implication.
In fact a mere registration of it – an alien in the
Bureau of Immigration admit possession of a foreign
passport does not, this does not constitute effective
enunciation. So that does not mean, so it must be a –
a public statement noh, a notice to the world. Uh
kana so dapat maprove pud sya in the appropriate
proceeding na gihimo nimo ning express enunciation
of citizenship.
So be careful with your uh tweets noh. So wala pa
tay jurisprudence or ever kanang mga social media
posts nato but basig noh makasuhan ka. Di man sya
pinoy. Tan-awa gud ni oh. Gusto sya muadto ug
America or gusto sya muadto ug New Zealand kay
wala nay COVID didto. Tan-awa iyang mga tweets,
oh tanggala ni. Pahawaa ni diri. Naa na syay express
renunciation of his citizenship. Pag file na mu ug
case noh, para mahibaw-an nato kung ah, pwede ba
nah na ground. Anyway, subscribing an oath of
allegiance to support laws of another county upon
attaining the age of 21. Rendering service in armed
forces as mentioned earlier cancellation of certificate
of naturalization if you a naturalized Filipino. Deserter
in times of war. Note that kaning time of war,
international war ni. Dili local war noh. Not war with
the rebels, MILF, so there is a commentary.
In case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner
if by virtue of the laws of her husband’s country, she
acquires his nationality/citizenship. Oh, kani toh
akong gina-mention. Amendment to the to the CA
brought about by the RA 9225 noh. Note that in the
law CA 63, by naturalization, one loses his or her
Filipino citizenship however, because of RA 9225, his
or her citizenship is now retained. And this is if you
have yourself naturalized after the effectivity of RA
9225. Retained Oh precisely, they of the law.
Citizenship retention and reacquisition. So dili lang
sya applicable to those who had themselves
naturalized after the effectivity of the law but it also
applies to lost their Filipino citizenship by way of
naturalization because they can reacquire it.
Why the use of the words reacquire and retain? Prior
to RA 9225 those who are naturalized lose their
citizenship. You have mentioned that CA 63 hence
they have to reacquire the same. And what is the
procedure? Taking the oath of allegiance to the
Philippines. Oh, ama lang ka-simple. But there is that
period, noh, nga you are not a Filipino citizen hmm,
kay Nawala man sya sa imoha if you had yourself
naturalized prior to the effectivity of this law. So, after
the effectivity of this law, a Filipino who is naturalized
in a foreign country, retains his or her citizenship
upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines. You take note of the provision,
however noh, natural born citizens of the Philippines
who, after the effectivity of this law become citizens
of a foreign country, they shall retain the Filipino
citizenship upon taking of the oath of allegiance. So,
okay nah. Noh? Pwede na magpa naturalize didto sa
Japan noh, and then kung feel nimo, feel nimo nga
pinoy n apud ka, balik napud ka sa Philippines, mu-
take kag oath of allegiance and you retain your
Filipino citizenship.
It would appear therefore that naturalization is no
longer a mode of losing one’s Filipino citizenship
after the effectivity of RA 9225 because you retain it
ha under this RA O. So unsa diay ning RA 9225?
Let’s just go to the provisions briefly hmm very
important. It took effect on Sept. 17, 2003 ah so this
Citizenship reAcquisition and Retention Act of
2003.
The policy is to – the policy of the law is that all
citizens of the Philippines of another country
shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine
citizenship under the provisions of the law. So
very favorable to those who have themselves
naturalized.
So section 3, any provisions of the law contrarily left
standing so specifically CA 63 oh, natural born citizen
sho- citizen by reason uh naa syay born citizen by
reason nah-a born citizens oh, who by reason of
naturalization – citizens of a foreign country, they are
hereby deemed to have reacquired their Filipino
citizenship upon taking the following oath of the
allegiance to the Republic. So mao ning tong mga
natural born Filipinos, nagpanaturalized outside noh
prior to the effectivity of this law. Uhm, nagpa
naturalized outside or in other country, and they want
to reacquire their Filipino citizenship what do they
have to do?
139

They just have to take this oath of allegiance.
Noh, I, state your name, blah, blah blah. Basaha
ninyo ang what is this? Oath of Allegiance. Oh tan-
awa oh. Defend the constitution. So in other words
murag ginasalikway na nimo ang constitution sa
imong country nga nagpa naturalized ka so forth,
defend the constitution of the Republic; obey the laws
and legal orders, I recognize and accept the supreme
authority and maintain to faith and allegiance thereto
oh, so you are no longer allegiant to the other country
and I impose this obligation to the entirely with
manner of reservations.
So you just take that oath and you are reacquire your
lost Filipino citizenship. That is because you, you uh,
have yourselnaturalized by the effectivity of this law.
Kani ang katong sa mga nagpanaturalized to the
effectivity. Natural born citizens of the Philippines in
other words, kung dili ka natural born, dili ka ka-unsa
aning nga unsa, obviously noh, kay kung di ka
natural born unsa man ka? Naturalized.
Anyway, natural born citizens of the Philippines
who after the effectivity of this act, become
citizens of a foreign country, they shall retain
their Philippine citizenship upon their oath. So in
other words, ikaw natural born ka, nagpa what is this
ah, nagpa naturalized ka outside the country noh
tapos gusto naka magpa Filipino kay mudagan kag
pulitiko diri oh mao ni imong himuon. Mag take n
apud ka ug oath because you retain your Filipino
citizenship. You never lost it after the effectivity of
this law.
Now what is naa pa syay diri dapit defect apparently
under section 4, the unmarried child, whether
legitimate, illegitimate or adopted below 18 years of
age and those who reacquire the Filipino citizenship
after the effectivity date shall be deemed citizens of
the Philippines. WOW.
DE GUZMAN VS. COMELEC
590 SCRA 149 (2009)
De Guzman and Dela Cruz were opponents. Dela Cruz
filed a petition to disqualify De Guzman because the
latter is not a citizen of the Philippines. De Guzman, for
his part, admitted that he was a naturalized American,
however, he applied for Dual Citizenship under RA 9225.
He complied with the requirements under this law and
took his Oath of Allegiance. So according to him, he is
already qualified because he has re-acquired his Filipino
Citizenship thus, he has reverted back to being a natural-
born citizen.
The Supreme Court held that he is not correct. This law
was enacted to allow the re-acquisition and retention of
Philippine Citizenship for:
1. natural born citizens who have lost their Filipino
citizenship by reason of naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country and also
2. natural born citizens of the Philippines who after the
effectivity of RA 9225 become citizens of a foreign
country. There is a recognition under this law that prior
to the effectivity thereof Nawala jud ang citizenship sa
mga tao na nagpa naturalize outside the country, but
after the effectivity of this law na retain siya. All they
have to do reacquire and retain is to take the Oath of
Allegiance under this law.
De Guzman falls under the second category, a natural
born Filipino citizen who lost his citizenship by his
naturalization as an American prior to the effectivity of
RA 9225. So, he re-acquired his Filipino citizenship after
he took his Oath of Allegiance in accordance with this
law, however, it must be emphasized that the same law
imposes an additional requirement for those who
seek elective public office. That is in Sec. V par. 2
“2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines
shall meet the qualifications for holding such public office
as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at
the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make
a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized
to administer an oath.”
So, the law therefore requires twin requirements: An
Oath of Allegiance and executing a renunciation of any
and all foreign citizenship if you want to run for public
office in the Philippines.
Here, the Oath of Allegiance by De Guzman was the only
requirement he was able to comply he did not execute a
renunciation of his foreign citizenship, therefore, he is not
qualified under RA 9225 to run for public
MAQUILING VS. COMELEC
696 SCRA 420
Arnado is a natural born Filipino. He had himself naturalized in the
USA, because of that he lost his citizenship. Now, he applied for
repatriation under RA 9225 before the Consulate General of the
Philippines and took his Oath of Allegiance thus he was given an Order
140
of Approval of his citizenship retention. Now he filed a COC and
executed a renunciation of his American Citizenship because he wants
to run for public office. Now a person here, Balua, filed a petition to
disqualify him contending that Arnado is a foreigner among other
things. He also presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration
certifying that this Arnado used his American Passport. Now if you go to
a foreign country dal-on nimo imong passport, unsa man nakabutang
na citizenship dinha? Kung pinoy ka, Filipino ang nakabutang dinha,
you are representing yourself as a Filipino. Now, if you use your
passport tapos ang nakabutang dinha American, your representation is
that you are an American Citizen. This had the effect of renouncing his
Filipino Citizenship, in other words he is not qualified to run for public
office.
Q: Is Arnado qualified to run?
A: No. 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.
Arnado took all the necessary steps to qualify to run for a public office.
He took the Oath of Allegiance and renounced his foreign citizenship.
There is no question that after performing these twin requirements
required under Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 or the Citizenship
Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, he became eligible to run for
public office. Arnado took the Oath of Allegiance not just only once but
twice: first, on 10 July 2008 when he applied for repatriation before the
Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco, USA, and again
on 03 April 2009 simultaneous with the execution of his Affidavit of
Renunciation. By taking the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic, Arnado
re-acquired his Philippine citizenship. At the time, however, he likewise
possessed American citizenship. Arnado had therefore become a dual
citizen. After reacquiring his Philippine citizenship, Arnado renounced
his American citizenship by executing an Affidavit of Renunciation, thus
completing the requirements for eligibility to run for public office. By
renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be solely a
Filipino citizen, regardless of the effect of such renunciation
under the laws of the foreign country.
However, this legal presumption does not operate
permanently and is open to attack when, after
renouncing the foreign citizenship, the citizen
performs positive acts showing his continued
possession of a foreign citizenship. Arnado himself
subjected the issue of his citizenship to attack when,
after renouncing his foreign citizenship, he continued to
use his US passport to travel in and out of the country
before filing his certificate of candidacy. Between 03 April
2009, the date he renounced his foreign citizenship, and
30 November 2009, the date he filed his COC, he used
his US passport four times, actions that run counter to
the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed. By
using his foreign passport, Arnado positively and
voluntarily represented himself as an American, in effect
declaring before immigration authorities of both countries
that he is an American citizen, with all attendant rights
and privileges granted by the United States of America.
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow
oath that can simply be professed at any time, only to be
violated the next day. It requires an absolute and
perpetual renunciation of the foreign citizenship and a full
divestment of all civil and political rights granted by the foreign
country which granted the citizenship.
Q: is the use of a foreign passport a ground for the
loss of one’s citizenship?
A: NO. The use of a foreign passport is not one of
the grounds provided for under Section 1 of CA 63
through which Philippine citizenship may be lost.
Nevertheless, it is an act which repudiates the very
oath of renunciation required for a former Filipino
citizen who is also a citizen of another country to be
qualified to run for a local elective position.
The act of using a foreign passport does not divest
Arnado of his Filipino citizenship, which he acquired
by repatriation. However, by representing himself as
an American citizen, Arnado voluntarily and
effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual
citizen. This act of using a foreign passport after
renouncing one’s foreign citizenship is fatal to
Arnado’s bid for public office, as it effectively
imposed on him a disqualification to run for an
elective local position.
TAKE NOTE: Naa napud ning mga hanash.
Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a
badge of identity that comes with attendant civil and
political rights accorded by the state to its citizens. It
likewise demands the concomitant duty to maintain
allegiance to one’s flag and country. As a rule, when
your citizenship is challenged, it is construed in favor
of the state.
MAQUILING VS. COMELEC
700 SCRA 367 (2013)
In the motion for reconsideration of this case, the
court repeated its ruling as to the effect of the use of
a foreign passport after one renounces his foreign
citizenship. It is considered a violation of RA
9225 and the effect is it negates the
renunciation which ultimately disqualifies the
person seeking to run for a public elective
office.
TAN V. CRISOLOGO
G.R. No. 193993 (2017)
Mao ni tong case na nagdiscuss sa difference
between reacquire and retain. So anyway Tan
became a naturalized citizen. So Natural-born
because this person to Filipino parents, this person
141
became a naturalized citizen of the US.
Nagpanaturalized sya didto. So kung
nagpanaturalize ba ka, unsa na, by birth? Diba
when you have yourself naturalized, naa kay i-
undergo na proceeding. Just like in the Philippines,
diba judicial ug administrative? Medyo cumbersome
gani tung judicial. As well as administrative. So naa
kay voluntary act to get that citizenship. So mao ni
ang giingon ni Tan.
Now, eventually on Oct. 26, and the effect of that,
because nagpanaturalize sya outside of the
country, nawala iyang citizenship prior to the
effectivity of RA No. 9225. So nawala iyang Filipino
Citizenship when he had herself naturalized outside
the country. So on Oct. 26, 2009, she applied to be
a voter in QC, indicating that she was Filipino
Citizen by birth. And on Nov. 30 2009, this person
took an Oath of Allegiance to the ROP. O diba gi
shortcut nya. Natural born pero pagpa-Naturalize,
nagparegister as a voter, and then nagtake ug Oath
of Allegiance thereafter, a month thereafter.
Then a few days later she filed a petition before the BI for the
reacquisition of her Filipino Citizenship, because according to her, she
already executed a sworn declaration renouncing all of her allegiance
to the US. And the BI believed her and confirmed her reacquisition.
Now, makita nimo ang reason nganong nibalik and nag reacquire kay
nagfile ug COC to run as a congresswoman of the 1st District of QC.
So iyang kalaban, aware aning mga panghitabo, filed a petition to
exclude her from the voter's list, because she was not, at the time she
got herself registered as a voter, on Oct. 26, 2009, she was not a
Filipino! Can you vote in the Ph if you are an alien? Of course not!
So anyway, mao to ang post sa iyang kalaban. Di man ka pinoy tung
nagparegister ka as a voter. Nganong nagclaim man ka na registered
voter ka. And because you are not a registered voter, you also cannot
run for public office.
So ana ang SC diri, YES! You were not a Filipino Citizen when you
registered your self as a voter! Take note, a natural-born Filipino
Citizen who renounces his or her filipino citizenship effectively
becomes a foreigner in the PH with no political right to
participate in politics and governance. Remember katong CA
63: prior to the effectivity of RA No. 9225, pag na-naturalize ka,
you lose your PH citizenship. In order to reacquire it, you have
to take an Oath of Allegiance under RA 9225. Or any other way
to get it back no. You can have yourself repatriated, pero ang
pinakacommon is under 9225 and apparently, mao ni ang
kanyang dapat gihimo under this case. She claims that she is
a Filipino when she had herself registered as a
voter. Pero ana ang SC, this right to vote is
reserved only for Ph Citizens. Only Ph citizens are
qualified to vote. Thus, to be a registered voter, the
registrant should be a citizen at the time he/she filed
the application.
In the present case, Tan filed her voter's registration
application on Oct. 26, 2009. She only took her
Oath of Allegiance on November 30! Dili pwede na
wala pa ka nagtake ug Oath, nagparegister na ka.
Wala pa nimo sya nareacquire! Later pa sya
nagtake ug Oath, which is a month later.
She argues, however that her reacquisition of the
PH Citizenship had a retroactive effect daw! Such
that her natural-born filipino status was never lost.
And number 2, the reacquisition cured any and all
defects, assuming that there were any, when she
registered as a voter, was her citizenship restored
retroactively by her taking of the Oath.
So remember, nagpanaturalize sya before the
effectivity of RA 9225. So definitely nawala iyang
Ph citizenship. Then nagtake effect ang 9225, and
so karon nag avail na sya, nagtake sya ug oath,
nya iyang premise is that when she took that oath,
nagretroact to sya to the very day na nawala iyang
PH Citizenship, which was when she had herself
naturalized. Meaning, nibalik sya sa iyang pagka
natural-born as if wala nawala ang iyahang pagka
natural born in the first place. As if naretain niya
iyang pagka natural born.
Ana ang SC: Was it restored retroactively when she
took that oath? NO! There is no dispute that the law
was enacted to allow natural born Ph Citizens who
lost their citizenship to naturalization to
expeditiously reacquire and and kailangan lang
nimo to do to get that: taking an oath of allegiance.
The law however makes a distinction between Ph
Citizenship who lost their Citizenship prior to the
effectivity. Sa ilaha, they need to reacquire it by
taking an Oath of Allegiance. When you say
"reacquire", YOU LOST IT. That's why you need to
reacquire it! So dili pwede na pagreacquire nimo,
nibalik ka sa pinakasugod, because you lost it! And
it makes a distinction for those who lost their
citizenship prior to the effectivity of RA 9225 and
reacquire them from the same law from those who
lost their citizenship after RA 9225.
So when RA 9225 was already in effect and then
didto pa nagtanaturalize, after the effectivity of the
law, dira pa matawag na NARETAIN imohang
filipino citizenship. Not so much discussion there
kasi dili kana ang main issue in this case but take
note of the distinction:
If prior to the effectivity of the law nya
nagpanaturalize ka, you lost your ph citizenship and
that's why you need to reacquire it; after the
142
effectivity of the law and you had your self
naturalized, you retain it by taking the oath of
allegiance. Si Tan, nahulog sya sa first class. Once
Ph citizenship is renounced because of
naturalization, we cannot consider one a Filipino
unless and until her allegiance to the Republic is
reaffirmed. Simply stated, right after a filipino
renounces allegiance to our country, he or she is
considered a foreigner, and that's what she did. She
took an Oath of Allegiance prior to the enactment of
RA No. 9225. So she lost her Ph citizenship.
If we were to effect as retroactive, her citizenship to
the date that she lost it,then the different use of the
words "reacquire" and "retain" would be rendered
futile or ineffective.
So naay reason nganong ang isa kay mureacquire
(kay nawala man in the 1st place) and naa puy
retain.
So this is a recognition that prior to the effectivity of
RA 9225, Filipinos who have been naturalized in a
foreign country lost their citizenship. Hence they
have to reacquire it. On the other hand, after the
effectivity of the law, those who lose their
citizenship retain the same and the requirement
there is to take an Oath of Allegiance.
YU VS. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
Si Yu, nagpa-naturalize ni sya as a Filipino.
However, afterwards, sige syag gamit sa iyang
Portuguese Passport. He was originally issued a
Portuguese passport then nagpanaturalize sya as a
PH Citizen. And thereafter, nag apply na pud sya
for a Portuguese passport. Was he still a citizen of
the Ph, who had renounced upon his naturalization,
absolutely any allegiance to another country. He
declared his nationality as portuguese, not only in
his passport but also in his commercial documents.
So unsa man jud ka?
So in the mind of the Court, those acts, considered
together, constitute an express renunciation of PH
citizenship. Unsa gani ang effect kung you
expressly renounce it? You lose your Ph
citizenship. Express renunciation was held to be a
renunciation that is made distinctly and explicitly,
and not left to inference or implication.
Here, with full knowledge and legal capacity, after
having renounced Portuguese Citizenship upon
naturalization as a PH citizen, he resumed or
reacquired his prior status as a Portuguese citizen.
He applied for renewal of his Portuguese passport
and represented himself as such in his official
documents, so he is now claiming (after
naturalization as ph citizen) na Portuguese ko. That
is already equivalent to an express renunciation.
So take note of this: unsa ang express
renunciation? Renunciation that is made known
distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference and
implication.
AZNAR VS. COMELEC
Lito Osmena, kaning politician, filed a COC to run
for governor in Cebu. His opponent filed a petition
to disqualify him on the ground that he is a US
Citizen. Why? Because Osmena is an American
and a holder of an ACR and an Immigrant
Certificate of Residence.
Osmena on the other hand, claims that he is a PH
citizen born of Filipino parents, continuously
residing in the PH, haven't gone out of the country
for more than six months, registered voter. So is he
qualified?
According to SC, he is qualified. Aznar failed to
present direct proof that Osmena lost his PH
citizenship by any of the modes provided in CA 63:
naturalization, express renunciation, subscribing in
allegiance(?). Osmena did not lose his PH
citizenship by any of those modes. What about his
status as a naturalized citizen of the US? Ana ang
SC, walay proof daw si Aznar. Ang iyang mapakita
lang is katong ACR. And according to the SC,
Aznar, because of that ACR, may assume that
because he had that, Osmena is now an American.
Ana ang SC, NO. By virtue of being the son of a
Filipino father, the presumption remains that he is a
Filipino. It was incumbent upon Aznar to prove
therefore, as the one assailing the citizenship of
Osmena, that Osmena has lost his Filipino
Citizenship, and here, he failed to do that. Was
there express renunciation here? Ana ang isa sa
mga justices, kay naa may nagdissent ani, si
Osmena daw nag obtain sya ug Certificate of Alien
Registration as an American Citizen, and therefore,
143
that is already by itself an act of express
renunciation. SC said, that does not follow,
considering the fact that admittedly, he was a
Filipino AND an American. The fact that he has a
certificate stating that he's an American does not
mean that he is still not a Filipino. Pwede man gud
na naa kay certificate nga amerikano pa but that
does not by itself mean na dili na ka Filipino if you
are indeed a Filipino.
In the case of Osmena, the only evidence here is
the certification that he's an American, but that
doesn't mean that he is still not Filipino, possessed
as he is of both nationalities or citizenships. So
again, when you want to claim that this person has
expressly renounced his Filipino citizenship, you
must be able to show katong requirements for
express renunciation. Dili sya left to inference; it
must be clear. it must be express. It stands to
reason that there can be no loss of Filipino
citizenship when there is no renunciation, either
express or implied.
So medyo lenient ang SC in this case.
VILLANDO VS. HRET
We discussed this case already, katong si Lim Kai
Chung. One of the grounds na ginachallenge iyang
qualification was that she was not a Filipino citizen.
Isa didto sa mga pieces of evidence na gipakita is
the ACR of the mama.
Ana ang SC: An application for an ACR is not
indubitable proof of forfeiture of PH citizenship. It is
issued to an individual who declares that he is not a
Filipino. It is only obtained when it is applied for. It
bears no indication of basis for foreign citizenship. It
certifies that the person named therein has applied
for registration and fingerprinting and that he was
issued a Certificate of Alien Registration. It is only
evidence, therefore, of registration.
So, an ACR is not enough to proof na naay express
renunciation. An ACR is not a public document in
fact, that would be prima facie evidence of the
truths of the acts contained therein. It only certifies
that the applicant had submitted himself or herself.
There is no presumption of alienage based of the
declartion. Thus, obtaining an ACR by
Limkaichong's mother was not tantamount of
affiliation of her original citizenship. Neither did it
result in an acquisition of and alien citizenship. So
again, holding an ACR and as will as application for
an ACR does not constitute the renouncement of
PH citizenship.
MAQUILING VS. COMELEC
On the matter of express renunciation, take note
that the use of a foreign passport is not by itself
tantamount to the renunciation of your Filipino
citizenship. If you executed a sworn renunciation of
foreign citizenship ma negate to siya.
Na discuss nata sa laws, on how you lose you
Filipino citizenship. Now, how do you reacquire your
FIlipino citizenship? There are many ways,
remember that in Art. 4 Sec. 3: PH citizenship may
loss or reacquire in the manner provided by law, so
ang balaod ra pud ang atong basis as to unsaon
nimo pag kuha balik sa imong nawala na Filipino
citizenship.
CA 63 provides how may citizenship be reacquired.
So, remember CA 63 it provides for the way na ma
lose nimo imong citizenship and it also provides for
the ways na reacquire nimo imong Filipino
citizenship.
How do you reacquire it?
(1) by naturalization: meaning na alien naka sa
gawas gusto nimo magpa Pilipino, gusto nimo
palisdan imong kaugalingon, mag pa naturalize ka;
(2) by repatriation: there are specific instances kung
kinsa pwede maka repatriate; or it could be (3) by
way of direct act of Congress: meaning a law is
passed, vesting in you the citizenship.
Isa pud sa mga ways wherein you can reacquire is
through RA 9225. In section 3, you are allowed to
reacquire it because you lose it by taking an oath of
allegiance to the PH. The policy of this law is so that
all Philippine citizens of another country they are
deemed not to have lose their PH citizenship under
the conditions of this law. Again, dili tanan ang
maka avail ani, kinsa and pwede maka avail ani?
natural born citizens, by reason of naturalization as
citizen of a foreign country. Thave deemed to have
reacquired PH citizenship upon taking the following
oath of allegiance.
In other words, natural born Filipino ka,
144
nagpanaturalize ka, you can avail of this law to
reacquire your PH citizen. And after the effectivity of
this law to retain your Filipino citizenship. Tan-awa
nang oath basaha na siya.
So kani tong mga nag pa naturalize after the
effectivity of the law. Natural born citizens who after
the effectivity of the law became citizens of a
foreign country, ganina kay wa pa man nag take
into effect and law gi.reacquire nila kay nawala, kini
nag take effect naman ang law, so they shall retain
their PH citizenship upon taking that oath. Diba dali
na kaayo.
Naay case na karon gina challenge ang
constitutionality aning balaod, because according to
them it cheapens the PH citizenship dali ra kaayo
ma naturalized then feel nimo na Filipino na pud ka
kay mudagan ug public position, mag pa RA9225
na pud ka.
It is averred that this law allows dual allegiance and
not dual citizenship. This law allows Filipino who
becomes foreign citizens to retain PH citizenship
and without losing their foreign citizenship. It allows
daw dual allegiance which is under our Constitution
inimical to the interests of the country. Bawal dili ka
pwede dually allegiant if you are in the PH, you
cannot be allegiant to the PH at the same time
allegiant to North Korea or any other countries for
that matter. You have to be loyal to one.
It is argued also that this law permits dual
allegiance because it allows foreign citizens to
redeem PH citizenship by simply taking an oath
without forfeiting their foreign allegiance. No, It’s not
unconstitutional. The intent of the Congress in
drafting this law is to do away with the provisions in
CA 63 which takes away PH citizenship from
natural born Filipinos who become naturalized. So
balik ta sa CA 63, isa sa mga grounds na to lose
ang PH citizenship, is naturalization. Because of the
effectivity of this law, it does away with that. You will
no longer lose you PH citizenship if you have
yourself naturalized when this law took effect.
Because all you have to do, because you retain it, is
to take the oath of allegiance. What this now does is
to allow dual citizenship. So naay recognition it
allows you to have two citizenships, to natural born
Filipinos citizens who have lose their citizenship by
way of naturalization.
It does not recognize dual allegiance, why?,
because under the oath, before you reacquire or
retain your PH citizenship, you swear, by swearing
to supreme authority of the Republic the person
renounces his foreign citizenship stayed clear out of
the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the
burden of confronting the issue of whether or not
this person is dually allegiant to the foreign country.
As far as you are concerned, when that person avail
of the provisions of RA 9225; natural born, nagpa
naturalize, tapos RA 9225 take an oath of
allegiance, he is now allegiant to the PH. Now ang
question is he’s still allegiant to the other country.
Apparently, that is not the question of the law. What
is important to the law is if he is allegiant to the PH,
it is now up to the other party to consider kung unsa
ba ni siya kung dually allegiant ba ni siya or is he
still allegiant to it.
Basta, as far as we are concerned, he has implicitly
renounced his foreign citizenship when he took his
oath. What happens to the other citizenship was not
the concern of RA 9225. So kani basa ninyo ang
oath niya.
So, by taking the oath you are already saying that I
am, I owe my allegiance to the PH. Going back, it
implicitly renounces your foreign citizenship when
you take this oath.
Now, let us proceed with the requirement for
elective public officer under the RA 9225. So, gusto
sila mag reacquire sa ilang lost Filipino citizenship:
natural born, nagpa-naturalize, gusto mudagan ug
public office. There is an additional requirement.
Those who are seeking public office; at the time of
the filing of the COC, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before
any public officer authorized to administer an oath.
So, that's a separate requirement. And mao ni ang
tenor sa mga cases na atong i-discuss karon.
LOPEZ VS. COMELEC
In Lopez vs. Comelec, he ran for the position of
brgy, captain. So, iyang kalaban filed a petition
praying for the disqualification on the ground that he
is an American citizen.Lopez argued that he was a
dual citizen, at the same time a Filipino and an
American by virtue of RA 9225.
Ana ang Supreme Court na he is disqualified, why?,
he did not take this personal and sworn
145
renunciation. He reacquired his Filipino citizenship
under the RA 9225. However, if one seeks to have
himself elective publicly, he should first make a
personal and sworn renunciation of any and all
foreign citizenship before any public officer. This is
a separate requirement, failing to do that, you are
not qualified to run for public office. You reacquire
or retain your citizenship but you are not qualified
yet to run for public office.
He was able to do his oath of allegiance and
accordingly regain his Filipino citizenship. it wasn't
enough to allow him to run for public office, because
the second requirement is needed to make that
personal and sworn renunciation. Again, It’s a
separate document.
How should the renunciation be done to be valid? It
must be contained in an affidavit duly executed
before an officer of law who is authorize to
administer the oath and must state clear that he/she
renouncing all foreign citizenship for it to be
effective.
So simple lang, so affidavit lang ipa notario nimo.
Stating there your express renunciation of foreign
citizenship. Bantug ra na ang mga cases diri,
emphasized the SC its’ a very very easy
requirement why can't you not meet it.
JACOT VS. DAL
Jacot failed to comply with this requirement. His
oath of allegiance does not substantially comply
with requirement to be able to run for elective public
office. What does the oath do? In taking the oath
the Filipino swear his allegiance to the PH. There is
nothing in the oath where you expressly renounce
your foreign citizenship. Precisely, when you take
the oath you become a dual citizen. A situation may
arise under the RA 9225, wherein some Filipino has
dual citizenship, why?, because you reacquire your
Filipino citizenship and there is a possibility na since
wala man nimo gi-renounce imong other citizenship
you also retain your foreign citizenship. So, it allows
individuals to become dual citizens.
So, in other words, dili na siya pwede when you run
for public office. That is why it is required under RA
9225 for you to categorically renounce your foreign
citizenship. So again, twin requirement:
(1) oath of allegiance (Sec. 3);
(2) personal and sworn renunciation (Sec. 5). The
Court even emphasized that the oath is different
form the renunciation
SOBEJANA-CONDON VS. REPUBLIC
What happened here was that dili under oath ang
iyahang sworn renunciation. So, anyway natural
born Filipino became a naturalized Australian
citizen because of her marriage to an Australian.
Now, she filed an application to reacquire her PH
citizenship under RA 9225 and she took her oath of
allegiance to the PH. However, she filed for
renunciation but it was unsworn. So compliant pa
ba siya ana? NO, she is disqualified to run for
elective public office. So, again you are required to
take an oath and also make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship.
Again, take note of the requirements.
Is this optional to those who would want to run for
public office? NO, explicit siya that if you want to
run for public office you comply with this
requirement. Also, the Court emphasized that the
act of running for public office, the act for filing of
the COC, does not by itself suffice to serve as an
effective renunciation of one's foreign citizenship.
Well the Court previously declared that the filing of
a person with dual citizenship of a COC is already
equivalent to a renunciation, because of RA 9225
explicit na need ka na mag-execute ug personal
and sworn renunciation.
But will have a case later na nag himo ug distinction
between those who have themselves naturalized,
dual citizen, meaning natural born siya then nag pa
naturalized then ning balik diri under RA 9225,
versus those who became dual citizens by
operation of law, meaning wala silay gihimo but
they were, because of the law of the country kung
asa sila gipanganak or sa ilang parentage siguro
they did not to anything they became such. There is
a distinction if they want to run for public office kung
unsa ailang himoun.
So here, was Condon nahulog siya sa first, natural
born nagpa-naturalized willingly hulog siya diri sa
RA 9225. If she wants to run for public office make
this sworn renunciation, is as additional qualification
for elective office specific only to Filipino citizen who
reacquire their citizenship under RA 9225.
146
The law requires that for you to be able to practice
law is that you must be a Filipino citizen. It did not
require that you must be a natural-born. So pwede
ka naturalized, pwede pud ka natural-born. But, in
so far as sitting, katong mga positions na gi-
enumerate nato ganiha, President, Vice President,
Justices of the Supreme Court and lower collegiate
courts, you have to be natural-born.

So, naturalized sya. It was clear from the records,

he is a naturalized Filipino. So therefore, dili siya
qualified.

Question: ngano naka lingkod man ni sya sa

Sandigan bayan di man diay sya natural-born
Filipino? That’s another issue in another story.

He has the burden of proving his ancestral tree.

Unless he does that, accept an appointment to the
court, this will be a violation to the Constitution.

147